Fallacies

A Fallacy is a defect in an argument other than its having false premises. To detect fallacies, it
is required to examine the argument’s content.
Fallacies of Reasoning
Here are some of the usually committed errors in reasoning and thus, coming up with false
conclusion and worse, distorting the truth.
a. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
-A specific kind of appeal to emotion in which someone tries to win support for an
argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt
-When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt to sway
an argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or evidence, can be
considered a fallacy.  This includes in some but not all cases the fallacy argument from
adverse consequences, or “scare tactic”
e.g.
Bad things will happen to us if you do not agree with my argument.
b. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
-Whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
-The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms:
 (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is
false.
 (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true.
-The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also
called “Argument from Ignorance.”
e.g.
Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.
c. Equivocation
-This logical chain of reasoning of a term or a word several times, by giving the particular
word a different meaning each time.
-allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the
argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the
same thing as the premise(s).
e.g.
Human beings have hands; the clock has hands.
He is drinking from the pitcher of water; he is a baseball pitcher.
d. Composition
-This infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of
the whole. The reverse of this fallacy is division.
-The composition fallacy occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that a
characteristic of some or all the individuals in a group is also a characteristic of the group
itself, the group “composed” of those members.
e.g.
Each human cell is very lightweight, so a human being composed of cells is also very
lightweight.
e. Division
 -One reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of
its parts.
e.g.
The 2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream
Carlos is a 2nd grader in Jefferson elementary
Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream
f. Against the Person (Argumentum Ad Homine)
-This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the
person advocating the premise. However, in some instances, questions of personal
conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate if relevant to the issue.
e.g.
What she says about Johannes Kepler’s astronomy of the 1600′s must be just so
much garbage. Do you realize she’s only fourteen years old?
g. Appeal to force (Argumentum Ad Baculum)
-An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a
conclusion.
e.g.
If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.
h. Appeal to the People (Argumentum Ad Populum)
-An argument that appeals or exploits people’s vanities, desire for esteem, and
anchoring on popularity.
-refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim.
Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.
e.g.
All I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.
How could you not believe in virgin births?  Roughly two billion people believe in them,
don’t you think you should reconsider your position?
i. False Cause (Post Hoc)
-Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one. This
fallacy is also referred to as coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation.
-mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing
follows another it was caused by the other.
e.g.
A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an
automobile accident later that same afternoon.
The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in
increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of
reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high
schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
j. Hasty Generalization
-One commits errors if one reaches an inductive generalization based on insufficient
evidence. The fallacy is commonly based on a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a
survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.
e.g.
All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a
restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost.
 Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog
loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!
k. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
-This is a type of fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or
explicitly the premise
-entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or
unproven assumption. In question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX
QUESTION.
e.g.
Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as
paranormal activity.
j. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION (dicto simpliciter)
assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most
instances will be true in all instances.
e.g.
Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest
sorority on campus.
I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.
l. Slippery Slop Argument
-This fallacy consists of arguing without good reasons that taking a particular step will
inevitably lead to another, normally catastrophic steps.
Example:
Mom: Those look like bags under your eyes. Are you getting enough sleep?
Jeff: I had a test and stayed up late studying.
Mom: You didn’t take any drugs, did you?
Jeff: Just caffeine in my coffee, like I always do.
Mom: Jeff! You know what happens when people take drugs! Pretty soon the caffeine
won’t be strong enough. Then you will take something stronger, maybe someone’s diet
pill. Then, something even stronger. Eventually, you will be doing cocaine. Then you will
be a crack addict! So, don’t drink that coffee.
m. Straw Man Fallacy
-You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to
your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the
easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s
actual position.
Example (a debate before the city council):
Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus’s
discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no
longer be observed in our city.
Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It’s not true that
everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the
Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this
resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.
 *The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even
indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country
somehow oppressed the Indians.
n. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument)
-defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to
disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of
the conclusion in different words.
example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.
example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on this, it will only further
prove what a disagreeable person you are.
o. False Dilemma
-Unfairly presenting too few choices and then implying that a choice must be made
among this short menu of choices commits the false dilemma fallacy.
Example:
I want to go to Scotland from London. I overheard McTaggart say there are two roads to
Scotland from London: the high road and the low road. I expect the high road would be
too risky because it’s through the hills and that means dangerous curves. But it’s raining
now, so both roads are probably slippery. I don’t like either choice, but I guess I should
take the low road and be safer.
*This would be fine reasoning is you were limited to only two roads, but you’ve falsely
gotten yourself into a dilemma with such reasoning. There are many other ways to get to
Scotland.

p. Inconsistency
-The fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we
accept a claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
e.g.
I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are white. But I just don’t think that white women
love their babies as much as our women do.
*That last remark implies the speaker is a racist, although the speaker doesn’t notice the
inconsistency.