LOGIC & CRITICAL THINKING   LOGICAL FALLACIES 

UERM Nursing 1A Batch 2024 || Francis August P. Ramos Module 5 | ​1st Semester 

 
INSRT SPACE F

OUTLINE 
AD HOMINEM - MAKING IT PERSONAL  
​I. ​Logical Fallacies IV. Fallacies of False Premise/Ambiguity
II. Fallacy of Relevance A. Straw Man ● Sara is divorced, so whatever relationship advice she gives
A. Ad Hominem B. Hypothesis Contrary to the Fact
B. Red Herring C. False Dilemma/Either-Or you can’t be good.
C. Guilt by Association V. Semantic Fallacies ○ It is the suggestions, not the person who makes them that
D. Ad Populum (Bandwagon) A. Slippery Slope
E. Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordium) B. Affirming the Consequent deserve attention. Sara’s marital status has nothing to do with
F. Appeal to Force/Fear C. Denying the Antecedent the quality of her advice. Isn’t it also possible that Sara could be
G. Appeal to Tradition D. Equivocation
III. Fallacies of Inference/Inductive Fallacies E. Poisoning the Well married and give awful advice?
A. Post Hoc F. Begging the Question ● If my husband forgot to wash his dish, I would move out too. You
B. Ad Ignoratium G. Definition too Broad
C. Hasty Generalization H. Definition too Narrow did the right thing, Carol.
D. False Analogy ● The arguer suggests that her opponent’s view is unacceptable
because of some negative character trait. Attack the person rather
I. LOGICAL FALLACIES    than the argument.
● Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that lead to faulty, illogical ○ People who say that hazing in the military is wrong are just a
statements. bunch of wimps.
● They are unreasonable argumentative tactics named for what has ○ He’s a liar so there’s no reason to listen to him.
gone wrong during the reasoning process. ○ …But Ginsberg’s arguments are nothing but trash. Ginsberg was
● Most logical fallacies masquerade as reasonable statements, but a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocate
they are in fact attempts to manipulate readers by reaching their of the drug culture….
emotions instead of their intellects. ○ Humphrey Ad
● I deduce it was Miss Scarlett…  
AD HOMINEM - CIRCUMSTANTIAL 
○ All inductive (not deductive) arguments are technically invalid
○ The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive ● The arguer suggests that her opponent’s view is false because the
arguments are strong and weak. opponent has something personal to gain if it is accepted.
○ An example of a strong inductive argument would be: ○ Of course France opposed the war on Iraq; they’ve got millions
■ Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
 Therefore:
 of dollars of contracts at stake.
■ The law of gravity will hold tomorrow. ○ We should disregard that scientist’s argument because they are
○ Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive being funded by the logging industry.
arguments commit fallacies.  
○ It is these informal fallacies that we are concerned with AD HOMINEM - TU QUOQUE ​(“YOU TOO”) 
arguments consisting of premises, inferences, and conclusions. ● The arguer suggests that her opponent’s position is inconsistent
○ Therefore…you will be examining: with their own beliefs or actions and therefore the position is false.
■ Premises ○ You’re telling me to stop speeding on the highway? You’ve
■ Inferences received more speeding tickets than I have.
■ Conclusions ○ Gore is a hypocrite on Campaign finance issues – he’s raised as
much money as anyone.
○ You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more
II. FALLACY OF RELEVANCE  
than a year.
● The fallacies of relevance clearly fail to provide adequate reason for
believing the truth of their conclusions.
● They are often used in attempts to persuade people by non-logical B. RED HERRING  
● Red Herring: When the arguer changes the subject and take the
means, only the unwary, the predisposed, and the gullible are apt to
listener down a different, unrelated path.
be fooled by their illegitimate appeals.
○ Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of
● Many of them were identified by medieval and renaissance
nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter
logicians, whose Latin names for them have passed into common
where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are
use.
electrocuted by accident. Since most of the accidents are caused
by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would just
A. AD HOMINEM  
● Latin for ​to the man exercise greater caution.
● Directly attacks someone’s appearance, personal habits, or
character rather than focusing on the merit of the issue at hand. C. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION 
The implication is that if something is wrong with this person, ● The arguer suggests her opponent’s views should be rejected
whatever he/she says must be wrong. because the opponent is a member of a perceived disreputable
○ How can you say he’s a good musician when he’s been in and group or the views of the opponent are also held by persons of a
out of rehab for three years? disreputable group.

GEC4  ​N1A 2024​ Jacob, K Page 1 of ​4

 ○ Nationalized health care programs are unacceptable because
they are the sort of thing that Communists support.
○ There’s no reason to deal with Arafat. He’s a known terrorist.
○ Politician X once spoke with the leader of the KKK.
D. AD POPULUM (BANDWAGON) 
● The arguer appeals to the sheer number of persons who agree with
the belief or to the popularity of the belief as evidence that it is true.
○ Because a majority of Americans believe in UFO’s, they must
exist! That many people can’t be wrong!
○ 4 out of 5 dentists recommend brushing with pure cane sugar.
E. APPEAL TO PITY (AD MISERICORDIUM)  probably won't.
● The arguer tries to get you to accept their view on the grounds that
they will be harmed if you don’t.
○ I really need you to give me an A in this course. I know I didn’t
do that well, but an average grade will bring my grade point
average down.
○ Just do as I ask before you give me a heart attack!
F. APPEAL TO FORCE/FEAR   ○ Q: What do you call a blonde skeleton in the closet?
● The arguer tries to get you to accept their view on the grounds that
you will be harmed if you don’t. They use attempts to motivate you
from fear rather than logically persuade you.
○ So you’re an animal rights activist. I’d consider changing my
views if I were you because most of us here on the prairies are
beef farmers and we don’t care too much for your kind.
○ Willie Horton​ Ad
G. APPEAL TO TRADITION  unrepresentative sample size.
● The arguer bases the acceptance of a position on the mere fact that
they have always believed it or that it has always been accepted,
that it is true.
○ Although horrendous in our eyes, the burning of the wives of
deceased men should be considered morally acceptable since
the society in question has been doing it for centuries.
III. FALLACIES OF INFERENCE/INDUCTIVE FALLACIES  different. A false analogy claims comparison when differences
● This category is for inductive fallacies, or faulty generalizations,
arguments that improperly move from specific instances to general
rules.
A. POST HOC   the common cold?
● Short for ​post hoc, ergo propter hoc,​ which means after this,
therefore caused by this.
● This fallacy assumes that just because B happened after A, it must
have been caused by A.
● Politicians love this one.
● Example:
○ Since Governor Bush took office, unemployment of minorities in
the state has decreased by seven percent. Governor Bush
should be applauded for reducing unemployment among
minorities. Before we pat the governor on the back, the speaker
must show that Bush’s policies are responsible for the decrease
in unemployment. It is not enough to show the decrease came
after his election.
GEC4  Logical Fallacies
B. AD IGNORATIUM 
● The arguer uses the fact that a proposition has not been disproved
as evidence that the proposition is true, or if it has not been proven,
that it is false.
○ People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive
evidence that astrology doesn’t work. But they haven’t.
Therefore, we must conclude that the claims of astrology are
true.
○ You haven’t disproved that Mossad wasn’t involved in 9/11,
which suggests they almost surely were.
○ Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they probably
exist.
○ Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it
C. HASTY GENERALIZATION 
● A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on insufficient or
unrepresentative evidence.
● Stereotyping and sexism are forms of this fallacy. Take, for
example common dumb blonde jokes:
A: Last year's hide-and-go-seek winner.
● Example:
○ The only redheads I know are rude. Therefore, all redheads
must have bad manners.
■ If the speaker only knows two redheads, then he has
insufficient evidence to make the general claim about all
people with that hair color.
● Any argument that draws a generalization based on a small or
○ 75% of the people who responded to our Poll via e-mail have
some college education, so 75% of all Americans have some
college education.
○ You can't speak French; I can't -> no one at the UofA can
D. FALSE ANALOGY 
● An analogy points out similarities in things that are otherwise
outweigh similarities. Essentially, it’s comparing apples and
oranges!
● Example:
○ If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we find the cure for
■ While both things being compared here are related to
science, there are more differences than similarities between
space and biological advancements.
IV.FALLACIES OF FALSE PREMISE/AMBIGUITY  
● Fallacies of ambiguity appear to support their conclusions only due
to their imprecise use of language. Once terms are clarified,
fallacies of ambiguity are exposed. It is to avoid fallacies of this type
that philosophers often carefully define their terms before launching
into an argument.
Page 2 of ​4
 A. STRAW MAN  C. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
● The arguer makes her own position appear stronger by
misrepresenting her opponent’s position.
○ Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in public schools.
Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what
they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of
all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state.
Is that what we want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly
Mr. Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.
○ Is this really what Goldberg was arguing? Almost certainly not.
B.HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO THE FACT 
● Start with a hypothesis that's not true and draw conclusions from it
○ If Columbus had never found America, the Islanders would not
have been decimated by disease.
■ But, someone else would have later!?
C. FALSE DILEMMA/EITHER-OR 
● A false dilemma asserts that a complex situation can have only two
possible outcomes and that one of the options is necessary or
preferable.
● Either go to college or forget about making money.
● This falsely implies that a college education is a prerequisite for
financial success.
○ Was it her college education that made Britney tons of money?
● The arguer claims that there are only two options and one is
unacceptable so we must accept the other. However in actuality
there are other alternatives.
○ Either we ban negative ads or we let them run amok on our
television stations.
○ “Either the Saudis control the US government, or they don’t” –
Christopher Hitchens
○ If Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
○ Daisy Girl Ad
V. SEMANTIC FALLACIES  
● Fallacies in this category rely on vague or imprecise language.
A. SLIPPERY SLOPE 
● If ​A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through ​B​,
C​,…, ​X​, ​Y​, eventually ​Z​ will happen, too. ​
Z​ should not happen. 

Therefore, A should not happen, either.
● Marajuana is a gateway drug—all heroin addicts started by smoking
pot. (yeah, they also all started by drinking milk, so…)
● If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to
think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking
and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.
Once you begin upon this downward path, you never know where
you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder
or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.
B. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT  ○ God exists because the Bible says that he does. We all know
● Any argument with the invalid structure of: If A then B. B, therefore
A.
○ If I get a B on the test, then I will have passed. I passed the test,
so it follows that I must have received a B.
GEC4  Logical Fallacies
 
● Any argument with the invalid structure of: If A then B. Not A,
therefore not B.
○ If it’s a dog then it’s a mammal. It’s not a dog, so it must not be a
mammal.
D. EQUIVOCATION 
● The arguer shifts the meaning of a term or phrase from one premise
to the next.
○ Insane people are considered not responsible for their actions.
Your poor driving habits show a serious lack of responsibility, so
you must be insane.
○ Every society is, of course, repressive to some extent - as
Sigmund Freud pointed out, repression is the price we pay for
civilization.
○ That kid’s a little terror! I hope he doesn’t fly planes into buildings
some day!
E. POISONING THE WELL 
● The arguer uses biased language (either positive or negative) to
support their views rather than offering evidence.
○ We should offer our support to Haiti because they are a
backward nation and thus require guidance from a progressive
country like ours.
● Examples:
○ Revenue Enhancement​ = taxes
​ bombing
○ P​rotective reaction strike or air support =
○ Pre-dawn tactical insertion​ = early morning invasion
○ Incontinent ordinance​ = Off-target bombs
○ Friendly fire​ = Shelling friendly village or troops mistakenly
○ Human Remains Pouches​ = Body Bags (flexible coffins)
○ Strategic Withdrawal​ = retreat
○ Selective ordinance or selected chemical insertion​ = napalm
○ Involuntary conversion (of an aircraft) = plane crash (Eastern
Airlines)
○ Public safety unit​ = in some countries, a murder squad
○ Collateral damage​ = dead innocent civilians
F. BEGGING THE QUESTION  
● This is a kind of circular argument where the support only restates
the claim.
● Example:
○ Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe.
○ Jogging is fun because it is enjoyable.
● Unsafe means the same thing as ​dangerous and ​fun means the
same thing as ​enjoyable​. This makes the reasoning circular.
● The arguer supports the conclusion simply by restating it as a
premise or by leaving out a key premise.
○ I know she loves me because she told me so, and you don’t lie
to someone you love.
that the Bible is accurate because it was written by inspired men,
men inspired by God to write down his words.
○ Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such
objects won't sink in water.
Page 3 of ​4
 ○ Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that
abortion is morally wrong.

G. DEFINITION TOO BROAD 

● The definition includes items that should not be included
○ An apple is something that is red and round. The planet Mars is
red and round. So it is included in the definition. But obviously it
is not an apple.
○ A figure is square if and only if it has four sides of equal length.
(Not only squares have four sides of equal length; trapezoids do
as well.)

H. DEFINITION TOO NARROW 

● The definition does not include items which should be included.
○ An apple is something that is red and round. (Golden Delicious
are apples, however, they are not red. They are not included in
the definition, however, they should be.)
○ Something is music if and only if it is played on a piano. (A drum
solo cannot be played on a piano, yet it is still considered music.)

REFERENCES  
● Lecture powerpoint

RULES FOR A GOOD DEFINITION  

RULES FOR A GOOD DEFINITION  

GEC4  Logical Fallacies Page 4 of ​4