How often has one believed in a statement with no real credibility?

To judge something

without effective cause? Does this sentence sound familiar? A flipped coin has landed on heads 5

times in a row, so the next flip must land on tails. This is a fallacy, specifically a gambler’s

fallacy. According to the textbook, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, “a fallacy is

simply a mistake in reasoning.” (Van Cleave, 187) Some fallacies are formal and informal. A

formal fallacy is when an argument whose form is invalid. When the dependent statement is

sound and valid, but the structure and order of the argument is not sound and valid. For example:

All dogs are animals. All cats are animals. Therefore, all dogs are cats. In contrast, informal

fallacies are arguments with statements that are simply flawed and need more elaboration or a

different viewpoint. There are many kinds of informal fallacies that occur in our daily lives.

Some we don’t use and others we tend to ignore. To find out what kind of fallacy you are using

depends on the situation and how one uses it.

Composition Fallacy

Gough has mentioned that people tend to not take fallacies as serious as one should, since

in the textbook the examples authors use are humorous and not “real-life examples”. The

example they used is “All members of the Toronto Maple Leaf hockey team are good hockey

players, so the team is a good hockey team” to show a humorous example on how bad the

hockey team is. (Gough, 3) A composition fallacy is assuming the parts of a whole will have the

same properties as a whole. This led to wrong conclusions because what is true in the different

parts is not necessarily true on the whole. The key to understanding the fallacy is to note the

difference between collective and distributive predication. (Gough and Daniel, 4) The first

example used is based on a collective predication about how just having good players makes a

good hockey team. Whereas the main conclusion is that having good players is one of the many
factors of having a good team. The next example they used, “The Sutter (well-known Canadian

hockey family) brothers hockey players are both numerous and talented.” (Gough and Daniel, 4)

shows that the brothers individually are talented (distributive). Many start to assume the

composition fallacy because they focus on the contents as a group rather than the individual. To

avoid this fallacy, one must focus on individuality and see how it interacts as a group.

Division Fallacy

As Gough and Daniel have mentioned, in contrast to the composition fallacy, the division

fallacy is when a statement assumes that the properties of a whole will show the same properties

as part of the whole. By grouping the properties of a whole together and assuming that every part

of that whole has the same certain attribute, one can conclude a false statement. (Cline) Most

statements don’t end up false however, “All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” This

is a valid argument. What is consider invalid would be, “The United States is the richest country

in the world. Therefore, everyone in the United States must be rich and live well.” (Cline). To

avoid making the division fallacy, one needs to first find the attributes that are distributed among

all members by virtue of being a member, the distributive predication. Instead of focusing on

attributes that are created only by bringing together the right parts in the right way, the collective

predication. The example Cline use is “Stars are large. Stars are numerous.” Large is the

distributive predication because it’s a quality for each star individually rather than as a group.

Numerous is the collective predication because this attribute is only added if there are many stars

grouped together. If there is only one star, then it cannot be considered as numerous. However

that one star can be considered as large. When objects are grouped together they tend to create

new attributes that are only distinct when noticed as a group and that’s when the fallacy forms.
Because of the idea that nothing cannot create something, one assumes that the collective

predication must have appeared from the individual rather than as a whole.

Begging the Question Fallacy

To first “beg the question” one needs to assume the argument’s premise is the truth of the

conclusion rather the support needed to validate the conclusion. Begging the question is also

considered as circular reasoning because the premise and conclusion can used vice versa and be

in a constant loop. “I am right, because I said so. Because I said so, I am right.” is an example of

circular reasoning. The reason begging the question is a fallacy is because the assumption is not

justified by any evidence. Suster mentions that some tricks are needed to avoid unwanted

conclusions. Whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate

support for the conclusion, one is seduced by the but the statements given and does not want to

question the stability of the statements. (Suster, 2). According to Wasko, when making an

argument, one needs to be clear about what is needed to prove in your statement. Simply

restating the premise in different terms is not the same as being your conclusion. “Burt is an

excellent father because he does a wonderful job of raising his children.” (Wasko) There needs to

be more evidence and support on what is consider as a “wonderful job” to raising kids. Wasko

included the statements:

“Good fathers give their children time, instruction, and affection.

Burt gives his children lots of time, instruction, and affection.

Therefore, Burt is a good father.”

Conclusion
There are more logical fallacies than the one mentioned above. The aforementioned are the ones

that are mostly common in what one sees in conversation. People tend to use fallacies and not

realize why they use them and when. Fallacies are often used on purpose to either persuade an

audience without logical support or to simply get ones point across without the extra effort. In

conclusion, the most common way to avoid fallacies is to look at the statements given and see

where the added support, structure change, content, and even evidence are sound and valid.

There are more fallacies where probability comes into play but we focus more on fairness and

judgment rather than statistics and logic.

 Cited Work

Cline, Austin. “What Is the Fallacy of Division?” ThoughtCo, ThoughtCo, 15 Oct. 2019,

www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-fallacy-of-division-250352.

This article gives a fine definition of what the division fallacy is. The author manages to

use modern examples and how it relates to religion. They do not heavily focus on the

composition fallacy unlike other articles. They explain how they reach to each

observation and example discussing the contrast and comparison.

Gough, James E. and Daniel, Mano, "The Fallacy of Composition" (2009). OSSA Conference

Archive. 61. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/61

This conference explains the complexity of the composition fallacy. It has also mentioned the

division fallacy as well, since composition and division contrast one another. Although

the main focus was to use this source to research on composition, it does give out great

insight on the division fallacy.

Nikolopoulou, Kassiani. “Fallacy of Composition: Definition & Examples.” Scribbr, 30 Oct.

2023, www.scribbr.com/fallacies/fallacy-of-composition/.

The author has simplified on the definition of composition fallacy. They have listed the

many examples, identifications, and formulas. Mentioning the fallacy many

characteristics, I noticed how they divulge deep into what parts of the whole is used

to emerge into a whole.

Suster, Danilo. “Danilo Suster, Begging the Question - Proper Justification or Proper

Conversation?” PhilArchive, 1 Jan. 1970, philarchive.org/rec/SUSBTQ.

The author not only gives out a simple definition of begging the question fallacy, they also try to

mention how it’s a righteous one as well. They try to prove that this fallacy is

justifiable in any argument and should be used. It’s nice to see different opinions and

notice why these fallacies are still considered fallacies when modern times are

changing and common logic is easily accessible at our fingertips

Van Cleave, Matthew J. Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Matthew J. Van Cleave,

2016

This textbook has been used as the based for my topic in this essay. By defining fallacies and

giving short examples of each fallacies mentioned in this essay. The author does

not broaden the fallacies mentioned and only give out short examples and formulas.

Wasko, Brian. “How Not to Argue: Begging the Question.” WriteAtHome, 29 Mar. 2014,

https://blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2014/03/how-not-to-argue-begging-the-

question/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

This blog was able to answer the question on how to avoid this certain fallacy. By using

definitions and examples, one can conclude that it’s very difficult because there are

moments where the premise can be the conclusion if the support is there.