Q9. Write in very detail about various types of Logical Fallacies.

How to argue
against common fallacies? Explain with the help of example

FALLACY:
A fallacy is an argument that is flawed by irrelevant or inadequate evidence, erroneous reasoning, or
improper expression.
Fallacies can be persuasive because they are false arguments that may seem reasonable and
acceptable but are based on erroneous assumptions or invalid reasoning. If recipients are not
critically wary, they can be easily swayed by these arguments because they can sound appealing and,
on the surface, make sense.

Types of fallacies:
Fallacies are mainly divided into 4 groups which are then further divided into various types.

1.AUDIENCE-BASED FALLACIES
fallacies related to audience focus the recipient’s attention away from the relevant issues.
it is further divided into following types.

■ Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a Latin word which literally translates as “To the person”. Ad hominem fallacies
launch an irrelevant attack on the person or source originating an argument instead of responding to
substantial issues raised in the argument.
For such an argument to qualify as a fallacy, the accusation must be irrelevant to the claim at issue
and must be an effort to divert attention from it meaning an argument is ad hominem and fallacious
only when it is used to circumvent and avoid a legitimate issue by arbitrarily attacking the person
who raised it.

Argument against this Ad Hominem fallacy with example:

Example:
Parent: I am really concerned about your grades this past semester. You were always such a good
student in high school and now you have slipped to straight Cs. I think you need to study more and
forget about seeing so much of your friends.
Student: Why are you always on my back for not studying? Your grades in college were nothing to
write home about!
EXPLANATION:
In raising the issue of the student’s grades, the parent makes three points—that the student had
done well in the past, that his grades had slipped, and that he needed to cut back on his social life
and study more. The student does not acknowledge or respond to any of these points, but instead
accuses the parent of being a slovenly student so as to put the parent on the defensive.
So here we can clearly see that the argument given by the student is to divert the topic away from
the central issue thus is creating an Ad hominem Fallacy. In such cases to argue against such fallacies
it is better to leave or ignore such irrelevant points and come again to the main topic of the issue.

■ Ad Populum
Literally, ad populum means “to the people”. Ad populum fallacies occur when the substance of an
argument is avoided, and the advocate appeals instead to popular opinion as a justification for the
claim. Consequently, the argument’s claim is predicated on popular beliefs and opinions rather than
on reason and evidence.

Argument against this Ad Populum fallacy with example:

Example:
Eighty-five percent of those polled believe immunizations could be a cause of autism. Therefore,
parents should be allowed to opt out of having their children immunized.
EXPLANATION:
In this example presumes that if enough people believe something, it must be true. the medical
community, based on extensive research, reports that immunizations do not cause autism—at least
no compelling evidence has been found to support the claim. So the point here is that the public
opinion is not always right.
From this example we can see that this issue of Ad populum arises only in matters where the
popular opinion has no value. thus, Skilful argument critics should be able to discern the difference
between arguments that depend on popular opinion and those that use popular opinion to avoid
discussion of issues. thus, the Argument recipients who detect ad populum fallacies should attempt
to redirect the arguments back to the issues developed in the propositional arena and not those that
are extraneous.

■ Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to tradition fallacies occur when someone claims that we should continue to do things the
way we have always done them simply because we have always done them that way.
Appeal to tradition takes advantage of people’s reverence for past practice and attempts to avoid
dealing with meritorious reasons for changing it.

Argument against this Appeal to tradition fallacy with example:

Example:
Professor Smith: We should change the college grading scale to include plus and minus grading
distinctions. A recent study by this committee indicates that there is a big difference between a B+
(94 out of 100 on most exam scales) and a B– (82 out of 100). Further defining the range of grades
gives more precise information about a student’s performance in the course.
Professor Jones: Why should we change? We’ve had simple letter grades without plus or minus
distinctions in this college for over ten years and it’s worked fine.
EXPLANATION:
In this example we see that Professor Smith presented a good reason for changing the grading
system—that the change will provide more precise information about student performance. Instead
of responding to Smith’s substantive argument, Jones merely appealed to tradition, saying that the
way things have been done in the past should continue.
This shows that this fallacy of appeal to tradition only arises when the new established rule
contradicts already present widely accepted and practiced belief thus in such case the argument
recipient should first make this point clear that this tradition was also established by someone who
broke the previous established tradition and then he should make the arguer realize the significance
of his opinion over the previously established tradition.

■ Straw Arguments
The straw argument fallacy attacks a weakened form of an opponent’s argument or an argument the
opponent did not advance as a
way to obscure the important issues.
In strawman argument a weak point from opponent argument is taken which has no link with the
main point of argument and is used to weaken the opponent’s position in the argument.

Argument against this Strawman fallacy with example:

Example:
Mary: I think it’s time for this university to move most of its courses online. Just think, we could
work on classes on our own time, courses would be much more interesting and interactive with
online discussion groups. Plus, we wouldn’t have to get up and go to a boring classroom and listen to
a boring lecture—we could fast-forward. Online education has been available for a long time now,
other universities have put all of their programs in the cloud, and it is time for us to move that way
too—it is the next generation of education. Professors can better integrate audio and visual aids;
there are more opportunities for informal discussions and seminars. Our school is too stuck in the
past.
Derrick: Yeah, but that idea will never work. I agree that the school is stuck in the past, but that
means it would take forever to teach the professors how to use the software or migrate courses to
an online environment. We will end up wasting more time than we save. People will get frustrated
and then they will stop using it.
EXPLANATION:
Derrick took one aspect of Mary’s proposal—that the school is stuck in the past—and discussed
obvious problems with it. He did not, however, respond to the central issue she raised—whether
moving to online education is a good idea and the future of the university. By ignoring the major
thrust of her argument, he created a straw argument.
We can see from this example that strawman argument is created to distract the focus of argument
from the main point in discussion to a lesser important point. In such case the argument recipient
should just ignore the strawman and continue the discussion, or he should point out the strawman
and then ask the opponent that your original stance and the distorted stance that he made are
identical.

2.LANGUAGE USE FALLACIES

fallacies of language use that occur when words and grammar used by an arguer mislead or
confuse the recipients.
These are further divided into following types.

■ Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation exploits the multiple meanings most words have by using secondary
meanings to lead to a false conclusion.

Argument against this Equivocation fallacy with example:

Example:
You shouldn’t take that course in reasoning that is supposed to improve your ability to argue; you
argue too much with your friends now!
EXPLANATION:
Here the meaning of the term “argue” has shifted from “reasoning and correctly supporting claims”
to “engaging in interpersonal squabbles.” The arguer has made a false causal connection between
the two based on the ambiguity of the meaning of the term argue.

Thus, here we can see that this fallacy arises due to improper interpretation of words so in such
cases The question the recipient needs to ask is whether the argument contains any language that
might be misconstrued by the arguer. If the answer is yes, then the recipient should ascertain what
the words are intended to mean so that both recipient and arguer share a common understanding of
the argument.
■ Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly exploits ambiguity in grammatical structure to lead to a false or
questionable conclusion.

Argument against this Amphiboly fallacy with example:

Example:
An arguer claims, “When we compare the danger of spreading AIDS with the incursion of privacy
involved in widespread AIDS testing, we must conclude that it is a risk we have to take.”
EXPLANATION:
Now in this example, Is the antecedent of “it” the spread of AIDS or the incursion of privacy? Until
we know what the arguer is referring to, the meaning of the claim is unclear.
Here one thing should be made clear that such fallacy could be both intentional and unintentional
thus the argument recipient should be on the lookout for both intentional and unintentional
ambiguity. If he notices such ambiguities, they should be immediately cleared by asking the arguer
that what did he mean there.

■ Emotive Language
The fallacy of emotive language manipulates the connotative meaning of words to establish a claim
without proof.
It attempts to persuade an audience by getting them to respond emotionally to images and
associations evoked by the language used rather than by judging the quality of the arguer’s evidence
and reasoning.

Argument against this Emotive fallacy with example:

Example:
After years of research and testing, a scientist from Princeton University has finally developed a
miracle weight loss formula that has clearly proven to be the strongest fat-burning compound in the
entire world! [This product] is so radically powerful that it can make the slim and shapely figure of
your dreams a reality.
EXPLANATION:
The emotive language in this advertisement may persuade readers who are seeking a “radically
powerful” “miracle” formula to make them “slim and shapely.” But the “Princeton scientist” is not
identified, nor is the method used in the supposed study explained. Educated recipients of
arguments should be sceptical of product claims that promise “revolutionary breakthroughs” and
“miraculous results.” Such language is often substituted for hard evidence and valid reasoning in
order to make arguments and claims persuasive. Thus, in such cases the Argument recipient should
point out such language and demand some real evidence or some valid reasoning.
3.GROUNDING FALLACIES
Fallacies of grounding that stem from a lack, poor quality, or incorrect use of evidence.
These are further divided into following types.

■ Begging the Question

The fallacy of begging the question assumes as a premise or as evidence for an argument the very
claim or point that is in question.
Often, when arguers beg the question they are accused of circular reasoning because they use the
argument’s premises as their claims and reason that one supports the other when, in fact, there is
little or no difference.

Argument against this begging the question fallacy with example:

Example:
The soul is immortal because it lives forever.
EXPLANATION:
In this example, the arguer has simply stated the claim in two different ways. “Living forever” may be
a definition of “immortal,” but stipulating a definition does not constitute proof of immortality’s
existence. Put simply, the evidence in the argument cannot possibly be verified.
Thus, When we suspect that a question-begging fallacy has been committed, we should determine
whether premises independent of the claim have been offered to support it and, if they have,
whether these premises are any more certain or acceptable than the claim itself. If the arguer has
not offered established or accepted evidence to support the claim, then he or she has begged the
question so the arguer should be asked to provide any evidence to prove his claim.

■ Non Sequitur
The non sequitur fallacy contains a claim that is irrelevant to or unsupported by the evidence or
premises purportedly supporting it.
In other words, the arguer grounds the argument in evidence that fails to support the claim
advanced.

Argument against this Non-sequitor fallacy with example:

Example:
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where teenage pregnancy is
increasing. The Guttmacher study found that the U.S. pregnancy rate is twice that of Canada,
England, or France, and seven times that of the Netherlands.
EXPLANATION:
The first sentence is intended to be the claim, and the second serves as evidence. Someone
attending to this argument that is not aware of non sequitur fallacies might easily be fooled. But
notice that the evidence does not say that the pregnancy rate is increasing, only that it is higher than
that in other countries. To prove there’s an increase, we would need comparable rates for different
time periods showing that rates have increased in the recent past.
Non sequitur fallacies are often subtle and yet seem obvious when they are pointed out. To detect
them, we need constantly to ask, “What kind of evidence would be needed to support this claim?”
and “Does this evidence qualify?”

4.REASONING FALLACIES
fallacies of faulty reasoning that provide erroneous or insufficient connections between the
evidence and the claim
These are further divided into following types

■ False Analogy

A false analogy compares two things that are not alike in significant respects or have critical points of
difference.

Argument against this False analogy fallacy with example:

Example:
We should not teach socialism in the university any more than we should teach arson.
EXPLANATION:
In this example, the arguer is comparing two things that share very few similarities. Socialism is a
school of thought and political philosophy, a theory only potentially applicable to practice, whereas
arson is an illegal activity. Indeed, the only way to see any similarity between the two would be to
begin by assuming that socialism is patently illegal or aberrant, and there is no support for this
assumption.
From this example we see that in case of such fallacy arises when both claims are not relevant the
argument recipient should ask for some valid claim or he should ask the arguer to prove that both of
his claims support the same idea.
■ Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization draws a conclusion about a class based on too few or atypical examples.

Argument against this Hasty Generalization fallacy with example:

Example:
The growth and success of cottage industries in the Appalachian Mountains suggest that other
impoverished areas can build small industries to raise their people out of debt.
EXPLANATION:
This generalization is hasty because businesses in areas other than Appalachia are not like
businesses there. The Appalachian Mountains are rural and remote, travel in portions of that area is
difficult, and settled areas are widely dispersed and located some distance from shopping malls and
convenience stores. These characteristics make patronage of cottage industries more likely. In other
geographical areas, however, people might prefer accessible, inexpensive, mass-produced goods,
and cottage industries, which normally have a small profit margin, would fail.
So, from this example we see that anyone to whom generalizations are addressed should ask the
question, are there other equally common examples that deny the conclusion? The key to
discovering hasty generalizations is in finding exceptions to the claim made. Stereotypes, for
example, can always be undermined if one can cite instances of people who belong to the class in
question but do not possess the characteristics attributed to the class.

■ False Cause
False-cause fallacies occur when the arguer offers a cause for a consequence that is not directly
related to the consequence.
It has 2 types which are discussed below.

(a) Post Hoc

Post hoc comes from the Latin post hoc ergo propter hoc, which, literally translated, means “after
this therefore because of this.
“Post hoc fallacies mistake temporal succession for causal sequence”.
A post hoc fallacy mistakes temporal succession for causal sequence. That is, one assumes that
because two events are associated in time, one event must have caused the other.

Argument against this Post hoc fallacy with example:

Example:
John Hinckley shot President Reagan after seeing violent acts on TV. Therefore, violence on TV must
have influenced his behaviour.
EXPLANATION:
The arguer in this example bases the claim on the assumption that some antecedent condition
(drinking milk) resulted in some consequent condition (Murder). The arguer is just linking these 2
events because of their same timeline.
In such case the Recipients of these arguments would need to seek out additional support to confirm
or deny the reasoning. What the argument critic needs to look for is the regularity with which the
time sequence of events holds true for the argument. If there are exceptions or other unexplained
conditions that might account for the conclusion, then a fallacy has probably been committed.

(b) Single Cause

Single-cause fallacies occur when an advocate attribute’s only one cause to a complex problem.

Argument against this Single cause fallacy with example:

Example:
Low interest rates are the reason for increased housing purchases.
EXPLANATION:
In both cases only one cause is listed, but for an advocate to argue that there is only one cause for
either housing purchases or the high divorce rate is naive at best. Increased housing purchases might
be the result of a glut of houses on the market and higher individual incomes produced by a stronger
economy.
For any complex social, political, or economic problem we can think of, there is more than one
cause, and an arguer should take care not to oversimplify. Thus, the argument recipient should ask
the arguer to prove that the cause he has given is the only cause for the particular problem.

■ Slippery Slope
The slippery-slope fallacy assumes, without evidence, that a given event is the first in a series of
states that will lead inevitably to some outcome.
This sort of erroneous reasoning assumes a “domino effect”—that once one event occurs, a whole
series of subsequent events or developments will occur in an uncontrollable sequence.

Argument against this Slippery slope fallacy with example:

Example:
James: I was really struggling with Biology 101, and I needed to drop it. I’m sorry because I know
college is expensive, but I just wasn’t getting it and I was concerned about my grade point average. I
went in and I spoke to the prof. She seemed to think that dropping it was a good idea because I am
so far behind.
Jason: I don’t care about the money as much as I care that you have dropped a class in your very first
semester in college. It seems to me that once the going gets rough you’re just going to quit. Is this
going to be a pattern with you? Next time, will you drop the first class that is tough? I’m afraid that
you might, and if you keep this up you may never finish your degree.  

EXPLANATION:
Jason is concerned about his son’s welfare. He wants him to succeed in college and he wants him to
finish his degree. However, Jason commits a slippery-slope fallacy. The implication here is that James
will drop future classes if he is afraid of failure and that this one instance serves as a sign of a larger
pattern of behaviour. But Jason offers no proof for this claim. Instead, he discusses a particular event
and reasons without evidence that it proves a larger pattern. Any evidence that the predicted series
of events will in fact occur rarely accompanies the slippery slope.
Thus, in such case the argument recipient should ask for some concrete evidence that how does the
first event lead towards the second or the subsequent events.