Department Of Mathematics

Mid Term Assignment

.Course Code: sw-204 .Course Name: LOGIC & REASONING

.Due Date: .Submission Date:

.Course Teacher: Riffat Jabeen .Session: 2017-2021

.Student’s ID: BS-MATH-F17-11 .Student’s Names: Nadia Parveen

BS-MATH-F17-13 Aleena Ashraf

BS-MATH-F17-15 Sheeza Hassan

BS-MATH-F17-16 Mubarrah Shaheen

BS-MATH-F17-21 Nimra Mukhtar

.Program: BS MATHEMATICS .Semester VI

.Ex-PPP Campus: M.B.Din

ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

Title Of Assignment: Fallacy of induction

Words Count:

Marks Awarded By Teacher:

 Introduction of fallacy
Etymology of Fallacy

Latin word Middle English

Fallacia Fallace

Deception, guile

A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood.

It technically means a flaw in a argument that makes it deceptive or misleading. A

fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.

Definition:
When we draw conclusion and that conclusion is wrong is called fallacy.

Fallacies are errors in reasoning made in the construction of arguments. Some are
committed intentionally to manipulate and deceive, while some are committed
unintentionally due to ignorance and recklessness.

Fallacies are divided into two kinds_ formal and informal. Formal fallacies, also called
logical fallacies, are expressed in a system like propositional logic. Informal fallacies are
errors in the content of the premises.

Example:
“Some policeman take bride. Therefore all policemen are corrupt.”

How do you identify a fallacy?

To spot fallacies, look for a bad proof, the wrong number of choices, or a disconnection
between the premises proof and conclusion.
 Types of fallacy
There are two types of fallacy

 Formal fallacy
 Informal fallacy

Formal fallacy
A formal fallacy is one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure
of an original

For example:

P1) If someone is allergic to sunlight they won’t go outside in sun.

P2) Ali does not go outside.

Conclusion: Therefore Ali is allergic to sunlight.

Informal fallacy
An informal fallacy is one that can be identified only by analyzing the content of an
argument.

For example:

P1) All feathers are light.

P2) Light is not dark.

Conclusion: So all feathers are not dark.

The structure of the argument is actually correct. The error in the content (different
meaning of the word light)
 1- Fallacy of relevance
 A fallacy of relevance is one where the argument in which it occurs has premises
that one logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 They appear to make sense through which makes them difficult to identify.

Different fallacies of relevance:

1- Appeal to force
This fallacy occur when someone directly or indirectly threatens the author as a
justification for accepting their conclusion.

For example:

Teacher said to his student if you do not agree with my opinion you will receive a grade

F for this course.

2- Appeal to pity
This fallacy occur when an arguer tries to support a conclusion by getting pity or
sympathy from the listener.

For example:

When a boss recommends someone for a promotion and make the argument that the
person really needs the additional money to support his family.

3- Appeal to the people

The arguer control the values and beliefs of people in order to make them believe a
certain conclusion.

There are two ways of it.

 Direct approach
An arguer address a large group of people and make them emotionally charged so he
win their acceptance of his argument e.g various politician.

 Indirect approach
Arguer does not focus on the crowd itself but at certain people and how they relate to
the crowd as a whole.

4- Argument against the person

This fallacy occur when instead of addressing someone’s argument to irrelevantly attack
the person who is making this argument.

For example:

She may be a qualified candidate but her skills are too short, so I want vote for her.

5- Straw man
An arguer misrepresent his opponent’s argument then defeat that changed argument he
then concludes that he has defected the original argument as well.

For example:

Parent: no dessert until you finish your chicken and vegitable.

Child: you only love me when I ea.

 6- Red herring

The red herring fallacy is an attempt to distract from the relevant topic.

Example:

In order to really look at the problem of global warming. We must first consider hoe the
homeless suffer.

2-Fallacy of presumption
This fallacy occur in inductive argument when an unjustified assumption is used to draw
a conclusion.

 Begging the question

This fallacy occur when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion.
Instead of supporting it.

For example:

The right of the criminal are just as important as the right of the victom. Everyone’s
rights are equal.

 False dichotomy
This fallacy in which drawing a conclusion from a false “either-or” statement when in fact
there is at least one additional logically valid option.

For example:

You are either with God or against him.

 Complex question
Drawing a conclusion from a simple answer given to a question that ask too things.

For example:

Have you stopped beating your brother.

 3- Fallacies of defective/weak induction
 A fallacy of weak induction occurs when an argument’s premises/statement are
not strong enough to support the conclusion.
 In the fallacies of weak induction the evidence does not enough to support the
conclusion. According to Hurley the evidence is not nearly good enough to
cause a reasonable person to believe the conclusion.

Reference: (Hurley boot page 143)

 Appeal to unqualified authority

The fallacy is committed whenever someone suggested that some conclusion is true
because someone who is not command on the object said it was true.

For example:

We use head and shoulder shampoo because it is recommended by Shahid Afridi. So it

must have high quality.

 Appeal to ignorance
The fallacy is occur when someone claims that a conclusion must be true if it has not
been proven false, or false if it has not been proven true.

For example:

 Example 1: No one has proved that God exists. Therefore God must not exist.
 Example 2: No one has disproved God’s existence. Therefore God must exist.

 Hasty generalization
The fallacy is committed whenever someone draw a conclusion about a whole group
after examining only some of the member of that group. This sort of conclusion is not
supported when the group being examined is too small.

For example:

A person might look at a number line and notice that the number 1 is a square number,
3 is a prime number ans is prime, 9 is square number. From these observations the
person might that all odd number are either prime or square while in reality it is an
example which disproves the claim.
  False cause
This fallacy is committed whenever someone based a conclusion upon the imagined
existence of a casual connection that probably does not exist.

For example:

Every time I go to sleep the sun goes down. Therefore my going to sleep causes the
sun to set.

 There are four varieties of this fallacy

a) Coincident
This occurs whenever someone observes one event followed by another and conclude
first event caused the sequence.

For example:

It is raining and I left my umbrella home. The reason of raining is I left my umbrella at
home. If I had bought umbrella with me. It would be bright and sunny.

b) Correlation
Correlation is the fact of two things, commonly existing or occurring together.

Correlation occur whenever someone mistake to think that two things are often together
that one is causing the other.

For example:

All the successful students wear white shirt, so if I get some white shirt. I will be a really
successful student too.

c) Oversimplified cause
This occur whenever some effect is the result of the chain of causes. But the observer
select only a small part of that casual system and make it for the entire cause.

For example:

The quality of education in our schools has been decreasing for year. Clearly our
teachers are not doing their jobs these days.
 d) The Gambler’s fallacy
This fallacy occur when someone mistake to believes that a certain random event less
likely or more likely given a precious event or a series of event.

For example:

Now this coin has made up heads 5-times in a row. The next one is bound to come up
tails.

e) Slippery slope
This fallacy is committed whenever someone conclude something based on an
assumption about a chain reaction they think will occur, but the chain reaction is
actually very mistakenly.

For example:

If you fail in English you don’t graduate from college. If you don’t graduate you won’t get
good job. If you don’t get good job you will be poor and homeless.

4- Fallacies of Ambiguity
There are something, unclear about the language in the argument.

 Equivocation
This fallacy occur because a word or phrase is used ambiguously. To be used
ambiguously man that here are t least two meaning of the same word throughout the
argument leading a false conclusion.

For example:

All trees have barks.

Every dog barks.

Therefore every dog is a tree.

 Amphiboly
This occur because an ambiguity arises in the argument and this ambiguity is due to
Grammar.

For example:

Let’s eat grandma!

Right is: Let’s eat, grandma!

5- Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy

 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.

For example:

This tire is made of rubber therefore the vehicle of which it is a part also made of rubber.

 Division
In this fallacy a trait of the whole is transferred from a whole to an individual.

For example:

The ocean when see as a whole is blue in color then each drop of water must also be
blue in color.

Fallacy of Generalization
A generalization is a broad statement or rule that applies to many examples. A

Generalization is a specific kind of conclusion. All generalization are conclusion, but not
all conclusion are generalizations.

A generalization can e valid. Valid generalizations (can be) are supported by fact
examples and logical thinking.

 How to make generalization?

In this pattern, author makes a general statement and then offer an example or a series
of examples to clarify the generalization.
Example:

Some clue words such as almost, always or generally signals that an author is making a
generalized.

 Types of generalization
There are two types of generalization.

1) Hasty generalization
2) Sweeping generalization
 Hasty generalization
Drawing a conclusion about a whole group based on an inadequate sample of the
group.

Example:

Some mothers are over protected to their children.

All mothers are over protected to their children.

 Sweeping generalization
The fallacy of sweeping generalizations is committed when a rule that is generally
accepted to the correct is used incorrectly in a particular instances.

Example:

P1: Children should be seen and not heard.

P2: Little wolf gang Amadeus is a child conclusion. Therefore, little wolf gang Amadeus
should not be heard.

Fallacy of false analogy

 Analogy means likeness or resemblance.
 A false analogy is an informal fallacy. It implies to inductive arguments. It is an
informal fallacy because the error is about what the argument is about and not
the argument itself.
 Definition:
Making a comparison between two subjects that have more dissimilarities then
similarities.

 Saying two things with similar traits are the same.

 Also known as false comparison.
 Exception: one can argue what exactly is “really not related.”
 Tip: Comparisons of any kind almost always are flawed. Think carefully before
you accept any kind of comparison as evidence.
 Examples:
Playing the violin is just like playing the cello. They are both stringed instruments.

 People who have to have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function
have no less a problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day
to sustain them.

Smoking cigarettes is just like ingesting arsenic into your system. Both have been
shown to be causally related to death. So if you didn’t want to take a spoon full of
arsenic. I would think that you wouldn’t want to continue smoking.

If one were to listen to only one kind of music or eat only one kind of food. It would soon
become tasteless or boring. Variety makes calling and listening, exciting and enriching
experiences. So it seems to me that an exclusive sexual relationship with only one
partner for the rest of one’s life that is, marriage does not hold out much hope for very
much excitement or enrichment.

 To say humans are immortal saying a car can run forward.

Fallacy of false causation
Causation means that one thing will cause the other.

False cause is a category of informal fallacy.

 Definition:
It occurs when two events happen at the same time and an assumption is made that
one event causes the other.

 Examples:
 The only reason that Katy missed school was because she is hanging out with
the wrong crowed.
  I failed that last test because I went to a concert the night before (the reason this
student failed the test was because he didn’t study).
 The increase in global warming in the past decade is because more teenager are
using hairspray.

Examples of false causation

 How to avoid the false cause fallacy?

It’s very difficult to accurately determine the true relationship between different factors.
So’ pay attention to you tendency to presume that one thing caused another. Be
skeptical of your assumptions, open to alternative explanation, and willing to change
your mind.

 Casual fallacies
 Main cause:

The most important cause.

 Contributory cause:

Less important cause.

  Immediate cause:

Closely precedes the effect.

 Remote cause:

Less obvious because it involves something in the past or far away.

 Casual chain:

An effect can be the cause to another effect and so on.

 Complex cause:

The effect is caused by many events, one of which is the reported cause.

“The accident was caused by the wet road.”

[Neglecting to report the drunken driver and

The jaywalking pedestrian]

 Insignificant cause:

An object/event held as a cause for an effect is a relative genuine cause, but is

insignificant relative to other potential causes.

“Rain in the Midwest has ruined the gulf

Fishing this year.”

 Past hoc (false cause)

 Past hoc comes from the Latin phrase, past hoc, ergo propter hoc which means
when translated, is “after this, because of this.”

It is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by
the other.

“Immigration from foreign countries has grown

recently, and had unemployment. Therefore,

must immigrants are unemployed.”

 This fallacy assumes that because X precedes Y, therefore X caused Y.

  Superstitious beliefs are often due to the past. Hoc fallacy an athlete wears their
“luck socks” and wins the game etc.
 Yesterday, I forgot to wear my special hawk eye hat during the annual Michigan
low a football game. No wonder low a lost.

Illicit process
An illicit process and its two sub-forms, the illicit major and the illicit minor, is a logical
fallacy in which a flawed conclusion is reached by improper distribution of the terms in
the conclusion in the premises. This fallacy is a syllogistic fallacy and a formal fallacy.

 Explanation:
Distribution is really about how much of the group you are talking and a formal fallacy.
An undistributed S (subject) means you’re talking about some of the group but not all of
it. A distributed S means you are talking about the group as a whole. Illicit process is the
fallacy that arises from drawing a deductive conclusion about the entire group based on
part of the group. This means illicit process is a one way fallacy. If we have a distributed
S in the premise, we can draw an undistributed conclusion because we’re drawing a
conclusion about part of the group based on all of the group. But we can’t draw
conclusion about all based on a few.

 Form:
An illicit process has two forms. The subject is the major term and the predicate is the
minor term. Undistributed will be abbreviated U and distributed will be D but will only be
put after the major or minor term to clarify what the fallacy is exactly.

 Illicit major:
Illicit major is a formal fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid
because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the
conclusion.

This fallacy has the following argument form

P1: All M are S (U)

P2: Some P are not M

C: Some P are not S (D)

Alternately

P1: All Middle are subject (U)

P2: Some predicate are not middle

C: Some predicate are not subject

Examples:

P1: All dogs are mammals.

P2: No cats are dogs.

C: Therefore no cats are mammals.

In this argument, the major term is “mammals”. This is distributed in the conclusion
because we are making a claim about a property of all animals: that they are not cats.

However, it is not distributed in the major premise where we are talking about a property
of some mammals: only some mammals are dogs.

Fallacy of illicit major

 Illicit minor
Illicit minor is a formal fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid
because it’s minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the
conclusion.
This fallacy has the following argument forms

All M are S

All M are P (U)

All P (D) are S

Alternately:

All middle are subject

All subject are predicate (U)

All predicate (D) are subject

Example:

All cats are felines.

All cats are mammals.

All mammals are felines.

The minor term here is mammal, which is not distributed in the minor premise. “All cats
are mammals” because this premise is only defining a property of possibly some
mammals (i.e that they are cats). However in the conclusion “All mammals are felines”
mammal is distributed (it is talking about all mammals being felines). It is to shown be
false by any mammal that is not a feline; for example, a dog.

Fallacy of the illicit minor

  Anti-evolution
In this critique of creationist article an genetic recombination, Alec MacAndrew identifies
several logical flaws including the illicit process of the following form:

P1: All recombination causes change in DNA sequences.

P2: All recombination is regulated by cellular mechanism.

C: Therefore, all changes in DNA sequence are regulated by cellular mechanism.

The flaw is that, while recombination may cause change in DNA sequences, it is not
proposed s causing all change in DNA sequences. The major premise does ot distribute
across all DNA, sequence while the conclusion does.

 Illicit Observation
An illicit observation is not an error of illicit process. It occurs when two terms that seem
to be opposite (but aren’t) are used as if they are opposites.

Scientists and Philosophers

  David Hume
 Aristotle
 Karl popper

 David Hume
The original source of what has become known as the “problem of induction” is in book
1, part (iii), section 6. A treatise of human nature by David Hume, published in 1739.

In 1748 Hume gave a shorter version of the argument in

section (iv) of an enquiry concerning human understanding. David Hume, a skittish
thinker of the commercial era, is the philosopher most taken associated with induction.

Hume’s argument:

A conclusion is justified either deductively or inductively.

 Deductions: premises contain the conclusion.

 Induction: moves from the particular to the general.
 Induction can’t be justified deductively.
 He said, inductive reasoning has been attacked several times.

Hume’s question:

Can experience justify our use of induction?

May be if we add a premises say, we argue:

Induction has worked in the past and present to allow us to predict events/phenomena.

Nature is uniform.

So, induction will work in the future to allow us to predict events/phenomena.

This is a deductively valid argument, so why can’t it solve the problem of induction?

Hume gave another example’ how do I know that the sun will rise tomorrow?

A natural answer is that we have this knowledge through induction. I know thw sun will
rise tomorrow, because it has been raisen everyday in the past. Now the philosopher
David Hume recognized that this inductive reasoning assumes that the future will
resemble the past. Why through think that this assumption is true? How do we know
that the future will resemble the past? This question is the starting point for Hume’s
skeptical argument against induction.

This is the sort of objection, Hume makes against induction.

Inductive beliefs are not justified. They could be true, but we have no reason to think so
if they happen to be true, it’s just an accident.

 Aristotle

The history of the study of fallacies begins with Aristotle’s work, on sophistical
refutations. In that work, four things are worth nothing:

(a) The different conceptions of fallacy.

(b) The basic concept used to explain fallacies.
(c) Aristotle’s explanation of why fallacies can be deceptive.
(d) His enumeration and classification of fallacies.
 Aristotle’s “Sophistical Refutations” (De sophistic Elements) identical thirteen
fallacies.
 He divided them up into two major types
1- Those depending on language.
2- Those not depending on language.
 These fallacies are called very bad fallacies and material fallacies respectively.
 A material fallacy is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a verbal
fallacy is an error in how the arguer is talking.
  Aristotle-first formed study of logic.
 Aristotelian logic entirely revolves around deductive reasoning.
 He has very little to say on inductive reasoning, i.e arguing from “the particular to
the universal.”
 No place for experimentation in Aristotle’s logic.

 Karl popper

One of the most influential and controversial view on the problem of induction has been

that of Karl popper, announced and argued in the logic of scientific discovery (LSD).

 Popper held that induction has no place in logic of science. Science in his view is
a deductive process in which scientists formulate hypothesis and theories that
they test by deriving particular observable consequences.
 Popper gave two formulations of the problem of induction.
1- The first is the establishment of the truth of a theory by empirical evidence.
2- The second slightly weaker is the justification of a preference for one theory over
another as better supported by empirical evidence.