FALLACY

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which
is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in
which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of
support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it
could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is
less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be
inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the
conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be
more likely to be true.

Classification of Fallacies:
(A) Fallacies of Relevance:
R1: Arguments Ad hominem
R2: Argument ad populam
R3: The Red Herring
R4: The Straw Man
R5: Argument ad Baculaum
R6: IgnoratioElenchi
R7: Appeal ad Misericordium

(B)Fallacies of defective induction:

D1 The argument from ignorance.
D2. The appeal to inappropriate authority.
D3. False cause.
D4. Hasty generalization.

(C)Fallacies of presumption
P1: Accident
P2: Complex question.
P3: Begging the question.

(D)Fallacies of ambiguity
A1: Equivocation
A2: Amphiboly
A3: Composition.
A4: Division

(A)Fallacies of Relevance:
Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that
simply don’t bear on its truth. In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer
evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance don’t do this; the
considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining
whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually
psychologically powerful, however, even if they don’t have any evidential value
Fallacies of relevance are the most numerous and the most frequently encountered. In
these fallacies, the premises of the argument are simply not relevant to the conclusion.
However, because they are made to appear to be relevant, they may deceive. It is also
called fallacy of irrelevance.

Example:
You: “I don’t see BARCA having a winning season in football.”
Raju: “You are wrong, and I will show it. BARCA will have a winning season.”
You: “Why?”
Raju: “Because they will.”
When we put Raju’s argument in standard form it looks like this:
Premise: BARCA will have a winning season.
Conclusion: Therefore, BARCA will have a winning season.
1.Argumentum ad hominem : (personal attacks/ against the person) An ad hominem
argument is one that is use to counter another argument, but it is based on feelings or
emotions rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one's
character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. This type of fallacy can
often be witnessed in individual debates, in court or in politics. Often, the attack is based
on one’s social, political, or religious views, or on lifestyle choices of the person being
attacked using ad hominem.
Here, one person makes an argument and the other person replies with a criticism, but
not made about the argument, but about the person himself.
Standard ad hominem example where the person criticizes the arguer instead of his
argument:
Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.

Types of Ad Hominem

There are several types of ad hominem arguments that are fallacious:

1.Abusive: This type of ad hominem argument involves attacking the personal traits of a
person in order to invalidate his or her arguments.
2.Tuquoque: Tuquoque means “you too” and refers to an argument that someone may
make if he or she spots hypocrisy. For example, if Person A tells Person B not to eat so
much junk food to improve his health, and Person B points out that Person A also eats a
lot of junk food, this is ad hominem tuquoque. Person A is not wrong to advise Person B
not to eat junk food, but Person B tries to invalidate this advice by pointing out the
hypocrisy.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.

Therefore, Y must not be true.

3.Circumstantial Ad Hominem: This type of argument attempts to raise suspicions about

the bias of the individual making the original argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 has a vested interest in Y being true.

Therefore, Y is false.

Fallacy occurs when someone uses unsound reasoning to support a claim or

argument.Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs when someone attacks a claim by
saying that the person making the claim is only making it because it's in his/her interest
or because of his/her circumstances. This actually has no bearing on whether or not the
claim is true or false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem:
A politician claims that it is in the country's best interest to expand oil production. Her
opponent claims that she is only saying that because her state benefits from oil
production.
4.Guilt by association: is another type of fallacy, which is an unsound argument based
on poor reasoning. In guilt by association, someone decides they do not agree with or
accept an argument because he/she doesn't like the person or people who have put
forth the argument. This is a case of ad hominem in which Person A makes a
similar claim to Person B, who is already viewed in a bad light. Because of the negative
associations of Person B, Person A’s argument is also called into question, regardless
of whether the argument is sound or not. If the argument attacks a person because of
the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents
of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 states that Y is true.

Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.

Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.

Example:Elizabeth believes that immigration laws should be enforced and that everyone
should follow a set process to immigrate to the United States. When she hears that
Donald Trump advocates enforcing immigration laws, Elizabeth decides that she can't
support immigration laws because she doesn't want to be associated with believing the
same thing as Donald Trump.
5.Adfeminam: This particular type of argument targets women (ad feminam meaning “to
the woman”) and invalidates something a woman says by using stereotypes about
women to discredit a statement
6.Poisoning the Well
Fallacy occurs when an argument is made using illogical reasoning. Poisoning the well
is a common fallacy. Poisoning the well occurs when negative information that is
irrelevant is presented ahead of time to discredit the argument. For example, in a
political campaign, candidate 2 presents negative information about candidate 1 (true or
false) so that anything that candidate says will be discounted.
Logical Form:

Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented.

Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.

Examples of Poisoning the Well:

Principal Marks, I have told you my side of the story. Now, I am sure that Mr. Jones is
going to come and tell you some lie about how I was disrespectful, when really he was
the one who was rude to me.
2.Argumentum ad Populam (Appeal to the People/Popularity)

Appeal to popularity is making an argument that something is the right or correct thing
to do because a lot of people agree with doing it. This type of fallacy is also
called bandwagon.

Logical Form:

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.

Examples of Appeal to Popularity:

1. Majority of people like soda. Therefore soda is good.
2. Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn’t you?

3.The Red Herring:

Red herring is a kind of fallacy where an argument is used to divert the attention of
listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in
detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters or to induce them to
make false conclusions.

It is a fallacious argument whose effectiveness lies in distraction. Attention is deflected;

readers, viewers or listeners are drawn to some aspect of the topic under discussion by
which they are led away from the issue that had been the focus of the discussion.

Logical Form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.

 Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.

Red herrings are frequently used in:

 Mystery, thriller and dramatic novels

 Political speeches
 Children's conversations with their parents
 Business announcements
 Government information releases
 Controversial conversations
 Examples of Red Herring:
1. When your mom gets your phone bill and you have gone over the limit, you begin
talking to her about how hard your math class is and how well you did on a test today.
2. When you are late getting home-past curfew-you distract your parents by talking to
them about the weather-how cold it is, or how rainy it is.
3. The mother of a young child tells him to go to bed, and he begins to ask questions,
say that he is hungry, or say that he needs to go to the bathroom-all to avoid bed and
distract mom.

4.Straw Man Fallacy:

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted,
exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.Straw
man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what
the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes.
So, instead of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version
that is attacked.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

Straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented
in order to be more easily attacked or refuted.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving
the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument
that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be
"attacking a straw man". Instead of beating a person or an argument, they try to make a
strawman of an argument that can be beaten.
Example:

Sarah: “I think capital punishment is a necessary component of our justice system and
should remain legal.”

Saina: “So you are saying that murder should be legal and it is OK for us to around
killing people just because we think that they deserve it? That isn’t right.”

R6: Ignoratio Elenchi:is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may
not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. It is also
known as missing the point.
Example: “Tihar jail is becoming overpopulated. That means we need to start executing
more people to get more space!”
This fallacy occurs when an arguer seemingly makes an argument to prove a particular
conclusion but, instead, uses the argument to make a completely different conclusion.
This fallacy can be very manipulative in situations where arguments are very complex
and not all of the people who are being manipulated are experts. (politics)
The latin word elenchi is derived from a Greek word that means a ‘disproof’ or a
‘refutation’. An ignoratioelechi is a mistaken refutation, one goes haywire because the
person presenting it does not fully understand the proposition in dispute. He refutes, or
tries to refute, a claim other than which was originally at issue.
In this fallacy, the premises actually support a conclusion, but a different conclusion
than the one presented in the argument. Usually, its possible to figure out the correct
conclusion since it is what actually follows from the premises.
This fallacy occurs when premises of an argument lead, or seem to lead to one
conclusion and then a completely different conclusion is drawn.
Example: Abuse of the welfare system is rampant now a days. Our only alternative is to
abolish the system altogether.
R7: Appeal ad Misericordium
An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiamor the Galileo argument)
is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting
his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the
recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual
evidence.Emotional appeals do not rely on facts or evidence; rather, they rely on
playing on emotions.

Logical Forms:

Person 1 is accused of Y, but person 1 is pathetic.

Therefore, person 1 is innocent.

X is true because person 1 worked really hard at making X true.

Examples
1. Grocery store commercial that shows a happy family sitting around the table at
Thanksgiving.
2. A real estate ad that shows a happy young family with children moving into the home
of their dreams.

Fallacies of Defective Induction

The premises of the fallacious arguments described in the above section are not
relevant to the conclusions drawn. However, there are many fallacious arguments in
which the premises are relevant and yet are wholly inadequate. These we call fallacies
of defective induction. What are asserted as premises simply do not serve as good
reasons to reach the conclusion drawn.

A fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion.

D1: The argument from ignorance (Argumentum ad ignoramtium)

The fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
The appeal to ignorance is a fallacy based on the assumption that a statement must be
true if it cannot be proved false—or false if it cannot be proved true. Also known
as argumentum ad ignorantiam and the argument from ignorance.

1.A is true, because it has not been proved false.

2. A is false, because it has not been proved true.

D2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad Verecudium)

Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an
authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant
authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

Examples of Appeal to Authority:

1. A commercial claims that a specific brand of cereal is the best way to start the day
because athlete Michael Jordan says that it is what he eats every day for breakfast.
2. A book argues that global warming is not actually happening, and cites the research
of one environmental scientist who has been studying climate change for several years.
D3: False Cause
False cause or Questionable cause is a broad category of logical fallacy.Questionable
cause is when someone incorrectly says that one thing causes another. The logical
fallacy of arguing that two events that are correlated (that is, happen at about the same
time) are assumed to have a casual connection. In other words, one event causes the
other. In Latin it is called “Non Causa Pro Causa” which means “No cause for a cause.”
It has two sub categories.
1.“Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” – after this therefore because of this.
2. “Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc”- with this therefore because of this.
1. “Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
An argument that concludes that a casual relationship between two phenomenon exists
because they occur together.
Premise: A& B occur together.
Conclusion: A causes B or B causes A.
Example: The more firemen that are fighting a fire, the bigger the fire will be. Therefore,
fireman causes fire.
Example: The fox howls every full moon, therefore the howling of the fox causes the
moon to become full.
2. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
An argument that concludes that a casual relationship between two phenomena exists
because one occurred after the other.
P1: B occurs after A.
C: A causes B.
Example: Mohan was drinking milk and there was a cat on the window. Mohan left the
glass and went to washroom. But when he came back the glass of the milk was empty.
Mohan concluded that the cat drank the milk.
Example: Lately Riya has been performing poorly in her exams. Her mother bought her
medicine and her grades started to get high. It must be the medicine that makes her
excel in her exams.
D4: Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization also happen when one uses a small sample to generalize about a
group. It’s a type of stereotyping.
Moving carelessly from individual cases to generalization.
A leap is made to a broad generalization on the basis of a very little evidence.
A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by
sufficient or unbiased evidence. Also called insufficient sample, converse accident,
faulty generalization, biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid,
and neglect of qualifications.
By definition, an argument based on a hasty generalization always proceeds from the
particular to the general.

When one makes a hasty generalization, he applies a belief to a larger population

than he should based on the information that he has.

Logical Form:

Sample S is taken from population P.

Sample S is a very small part of population P.

Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.

Example

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age
sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.

D5: Slippery Slope:It is an argument that suggests taking a minor action will lead to
major and sometimes ludicrous consequences. (stupid, foolish)
(Slippery slope isalso known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's
nose, domino fallacy)

In informal logic, slippery slope is a fallacy in which a course of action is objected to on

the grounds that once taken it will lead to additional actions until some undesirable
consequence results. Also known as the slippery slope argument and the domino
fallacy.

Description: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more

significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some
ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only
unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events
are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected
by “the next thing you know...”

Logical Form:

If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!

Examples of Slippery Slope:

If we allow the children to choose the movie this time, they are going to expect to be
able to choose the school they go to or the doctors they visit.
(C) Fallacy of Presumption: Fallacies of presumption begin with a false assumption (ie
based on unwarranted assumption) and so fail to establish their conclusion.
The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth
of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from
an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or
implausible.
Fallacy of presumption either assume what is to be proved or incorrectly assume that all
the relevant information has been given.
Some arguments are fallacious because they are based on unwarranted assumptions.
In these arguments the error arises out of an implicit supposition of some other
proposition whose truth is uncertain or questionable. The fallacy of presumption may
occur when something is assumed to be true though it is not reasonable to accept it in
the relevant context.
P1: Accident:
The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is rule as a
general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or
a typical in some way.
P1: Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
P2: Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
C: Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

Logical Form:

X is a common and accepted rule.

Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.

P2: Complex Questions

(Also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick
question, false question)

Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but
protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of
misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the
assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.

Examples:

1.How many times per day do you beat your wife?

2.Have you stopped cheating in exams?

P3: Begging the question

Vicious circle)

Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the
premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they
use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct
usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

Logical Form:

Claim X assumes X is true.

Therefore, claim X is true.

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning
assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the
statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves
using a premise to support itself.

Begging the question is a fallacy in which a claim is made and accepted to be true,
but one must accept the premise to be true for the claim to be true. This is also known
as circular reasoning. Essentially, one makes a claim based on evidence that requires
one to already accept that the claim is true.

Examples of Begging the Question:

1.God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is from God.
2. Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes are deadly.
3. Fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. After all, a healthy eating plan
includes fruits and vegetables.
4. Student: Why didn't I receive full credit on my essay? Teacher: Because your paper
did not meet the requirements for full credit.
A4: Division
Fallacy of ambiguity: (also known as: ambiguous assertion, amphiboly, amphibology,
semantical ambiguity, vagueness)

Description: When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the
argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion. Some will say single words count
for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a specific form
Ambiguity is when the meaning of a word, phrase, or sentence is uncertain. There could
be more than one meaning.
Typically, it is best to avoid ambiguity in your writing. When you make statements that
are ambiguous, you confuse the reader and hinder the meaning of the text. However,
sometimes ambiguity is used deliberately to add humor to a text.

Logical Form:

Claim X is made.

Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.

A1: Fallacy of Equivocation:

Also known as: doublespeak)

Description: Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an
argument misleading.

Fallacy of equivocation is the use of vague language to hide one’s meaning or to avoid
committing to a point of view. It’s often used by dishonest politicians who want to seem
like they agree with everyone. It can also be used in legal contexts, for example where a
defendant wants to avoid admitting guilt, but also does not want to lie openly – so they
use equivocation to escape the true answer.

The two essential elements of equivocation are:

1. Ambiguous language
2. An effort (conscious or unconscious) to deceive others
D2: Fallacy of Amphiboly:
The word amphiboly comes from the Greek ampho, which means "double" or "on both
sides." This root, obviously enough, is closely related to the English world ambiguity.

Instead of using the same word with multiple meanings, as with the Fallacy of
Equivocation, the Fallacy of Amphiboly involves the use of sentences which can be
interpreted in multiple ways with equal justification due to some defect in the grammar,
sentence structure, and punctuation or both.

D3: Fallacy of Composition

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of
the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper
part).

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

Example:

P1: The parts of whole have qualities X,Y and Z.

C: Therefore, whole must have qualities X, Y, and Z.

If one state has certain quality, entire nation must have that quality.

Example: Because all of the components of this car are light and easy to carry, then the
car itself must also be light and easy to carry.

D4: Fallacy of division:

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole
must also be true of all or some of its parts.
Fallacy of division occurs when someone argues that something that is true for the
whole is also true for the parts of the whole.
This is the opposite of the fallacy of composition.

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

B has property X.

Therefore, A has property X.

P1: Whole A has properties a, b and c.

P2: p is a part of A.

C: Therefore, p has properties a, b, and c.

Example: Because university has some qualities, so some university departments must
also have these qualities.