ANTS121

CLASSICAL RHETORIC

Logical fallacies
 VALIDITY OF THE SYLLOGISM

• Must have three terms only. Circles

• Must have middle term distributed at least once.
Squares
• Distributed
• All/None
• The predicate of a negative premise (e.g. No squares are circles)
90 deg
• Undistributed
• Some Squares
• The predicate of an affirmative premise (e.g. All squares have ninety degree corners)
• No term may be distributed in the conclusion if not distributed in the premise.
 VALIDITY OF THE SYLLOGISM

• No conclusions may be drawn from two particular premises (that is: I- and O-/ "some"
statements).
• No conclusions may be drawn from two negative premises (that is E- and O-statements).
• If one premise is negative, the conclusion must also be negative.
 HYPOTHETIC AL SYLLOGISMS

• One of the premises is stated as "if... then..."

• Ex. If you drink poison, (then) you will die.
• Terminology: If-clause = antecedent, then-clause = consequent.
• As a syllogism:
If she has leukaemia, she will die.
She has leukaemia.
Therefore she will die.
• A hypothetical syllogism is only valid if the minor (second) premise
• affirms the antecedent, or
• denies the consequent.
 HYPOTHETIC AL SYLLOGISMS

If she has leukaemia, she will die.

She has leukaemia. < affirms "If she has leukaemia" (antecedent)
Therefore she will die.

If she has leukaemia, she will die.

She will die. < affirms "she will die" (consequent)
Therefore she has leukaemia

If she has leukaemia, she will die.

She will not die. < denies "she will die" (consequent)
Therefore she does not have leukaemia.

If she has leukaemia, she will die.

She does not have leukaemia. < denies "if she has leukaemia" (antecedent)
Therefore she will not die.
 TYPES OF FALLACY

• From Lat. fallax – ‘deceitful, deceptive’

• Formal fallacies
• Improper conclusions drawn because of the form of the syllogism.
• Material fallacies
• Fallacies arising from the way language is used (in dictione)
• Fallacies arising from hidden or false assumptions (extra dictionem)
• Ignoratio elenchi
 FORMAL FALLACIES

• Undistributed Middle term A

• Frequently of the form:
All A is B. B
All C is B.
C
Therefore all A is C.

• Quaternio terminorum (Fallacy of Four Terms)

• Only three terms allowed for a syllogism.

No Republicans are Democrats

All conservatives are Republicans
Therefore no conservatives are democrats.
 FORMAL FALLACIES

• Improperly combining affirmative and negative premises.

• Exclusive premises/ Conclusion from two negative premises. Aliens
Ex. No aliens are human.
No humans have three eyes 3 eyes
 All aliens have three eyes.  Humans

• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Trouble Worth
Ex. All fights are trouble.
No trouble is worth dying for. dying for
 All fights are worth dying for. 
Fights
 FORMAL FALLACIES

• Negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

Ex. All cows need grass.
All grass needs rain. Grass [need]
Rain
 No cow needs rain. 
[need] Cows
 EXERCISE

What has gone wrong with the following?

1. All fish have fins. All goldfish are fish. Therefore humans have fins.
2. No Russians are democratic. All Americans are democratic. Therefore all Americans are Russians.
3. All typhoons are destructive windstorms. All cyclones are destructive windstorms. Therefore all
cyclones are typhoons.
4. No planets are suns. No planets are satellites. Therefore no satellites are suns.
 EXERCISE

What has gone wrong with the following?

1. All fish have fins. All goldfish are fish. Therefore humans have fins. (Fourth term introduced)
2. No Russians are democratic. All Americans are democratic. Therefore all Americans are Russians.
(Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise).
3. All typhoons are destructive windstorms. All cyclones are destructive windstorms. Therefore all
cyclones are typhoons. (Undistributed middle term)
4. No planets are suns. No planets are satellites. Therefore no satellites are suns. (Conclusion drawn
from two negative premises).
 FALLACIES IN DICTIONE

• Equivocation – a word has multiple meanings, both being used in one syllogism.
Ex. Feathers are light. Light is the opposite of darkness.Therefore, feathers are the opposite of darkness. 
Often results in the fallacy of four terms.
• Amphiboly - lack of clarity in relationships, usually caused by a dangling modifier.
• Ex. Tom was being beaten with that which I saw him being beaten. I saw him being beaten with my eyes.
• Verbal form – another grammatical error, requiring greater precision to correct.
Ex. Those who eat the least are the most hungry. Hungry people eat the most. Therefore those who eat the least, eat the
most. 
Those who HAVE EATEN the least are the most hungry. Hungry people WILL eat the most. Therefore, those who have
eaten the least will eat the most.
 FALLACIES EXTRA DICTIONEM

• Secundum quid - a hasty generalisation

Ex. I’ve been to France three times, and each time I was there someone was rude to me. Therefore French people are rude. 
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc – a conclusion drawn from two events following.
Ex. He was elected President, and car companies everywhere went bankrupt. It must have been his fault! 
• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc – a conclusion drawn from two simultaneous events.
Ex. Last year, poverty increased in the same areas welfare spending increased. Amazingly, welfare spending increases poverty! 
• Complex question – one or more assumptions made in a question demanding a single answer.
Ex. When did you meet the woman you would later murder? 
In reality we are asking: When did you meet the woman? Did you meet the woman? Did you murder her?
 FALLACIES EXTRA DICTIONEM

• Circular reasoning – the conclusion is also the evidence.

• Ex. That boy is insane.Why? Because he murdered his mother. Why did he murder her? Because he is insane. 
• False choice – the illusion of only two options when more exist.
 IGNORATIO ELENCHI

• Irrelevant thesis – valid, but no relation to what is being argued.

Ex. Is it not true that that during your term of office poverty has risen 20%? – In my term we have in fact seen record
corporate profits.
• Red Herring – introduction of irrelevant material to divert the argument.
• Ex. Is it not true you expropriated huge sums of money from military contracts for personal use? – I served in the military, I love
the military, and anyone who attacks the integrity of our military is a traitor!
• Straw man – deliberately misrepresenting a position so that you can easily dismiss it.
• Ex. You claim descent from a monkey; was that on your grandfather’s or grandmother’s side? (Wilberforce in a debate on
evolution in 1860).
• Argumentum ad hominem – attacking the person rather than the argument.
 IGNORATIO ELENCHI

• Appeals to certain emotions

• Argumentum ad populum – appeal to prejudice
• Argumentum ad misericordiam – appeal to pity
• Argumentum ad baculum – appeal to fear (the ‘big stick’)
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam – playing on the uninformed nature of the audience
• Argumentum ad verecundiam – appeal to authority
 ANTS121
CLASSICAL RHETORIC

Refutation
 REFUTATION

• Taking apart your opponent’s argument

• Not different techniques, but different application of the same techniques.
• Two basic questions which need to be asked:
• How do you know? – challenging the facts
• So what? – challenging the inferences
• Negative process:
• Deny the premises
• Attack the processes of argumentation
• Attack the sufficiency of the proof as a whole.
• Positive process:
• Submit your counter-propositions and show why they are better.
 REFUTATION BY APPEAL TO REASON

• Refutation of premises
• Flatly deny them.
E.g. Samuel Johnson (C18th) responds to a man, who was making a profit by questionable means, and who
claimed “A man must live”, simply with “Sir, I do not see the necessity”.
• Show that the form in which it is stated is incorrect.
• Investigation of the terms used, their applicability to and suitability for the argument made.
• Employment of phrases like “I admit the principle, but it does not apply in this instance because…”
 REFUTATION BY APPEAL TO REASON

• Refutation of premises
• Show a flaw in the evidence.
• Assumptions not sufficiently supported
• Omission of important details
• Contradictions by other equally trustworthy sources
• Replacement of fact with inference
• Mistreatment of probability of a situation occurring
 REFUTATION BY APPEAL TO REASON

• Refutation of inferences
• Show up any logical fallacies.
• Show up any errors in deduction (non sequitur)
• Show what the correct conclusion should be.
• Turn the opponent’s own evidence against them.
• Logical exclusion
• Prove that the conclusion is the only satisfactory solution by showing that it doesn’t work for all other solutions.
• Reductio ad absurdum
• Not to be confused with the slippery slope fallacy.
• Take the argument to the most extreme end to show if it still holds, or if it results in something which is impossible or
untenable.
 REFUTATION BY OTHER MEANS

• Emotional appeal
• Ethical appeal
• Humour and related strategies