Bahir Dar University

Group Assignment on Critical Thinking (LoCT 1011)

No Name ID
1 Ermiyas Kassa...................... 1505939
2 Tadesse Kesewmar.............. 1509545
3 Bisrat Kassa......................... 1509024
4 Abraham Kassa.................... 1509404
5 Alemnega Kassahun............. 1508557
6 Yihenew Kassahun................. 1509332
7 Destaw Kassahu.................. 1505770
8 Biruk Kassahun.................... 1509017
9 Zewditu Kassahun................ 1508927
10 Mohamed Kassaw................ 1509204

section:- 13
 Date of submission 19/7/2016

1.1 Informal fallacies

As an introduction informal fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or argumentation that

occurs due to errors in language, ambiguity, or relevance rather than strictly
following logical rules. These fallacies can lead to faulty conclusions but are not
necessarily formal violations of deductive logic.
An informal fallacy divides twenty-two informal fallacies into five groups:
fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption,
fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

Here in our deed we focus on fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of

grammatical analogy.

1.2 Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical analogy

1.2.1 Fallacies of Ambiguity

An informal fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the meaning of a term

or statement is unclear or misleading. This can happen due to vagueness
(lack of clarity) or ambiguity (multiple possible meanings). These fallacies
can lead to faulty reasoning because they rely on ambiguous language to
persuade or confuse the audience.
 In other words these fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of
ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both).

· The fallacies of ambiguity includes equivocation and amphiboly

1.2.2 Fallacy of Equivocation

The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when a key term in an argument is

used in different senses, leading to a false or misleading conclusion. This fallacy
relies on the ambiguity of language, where the same word is used with multiple
meanings.

In other words The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when a term in an

argument is used with more than one meaning, leading to a false
conclusion.

Also this fallacy can be described as The fallacy of equivocation occurs

when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or
phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the
argument.

examples

⦁ "Banks are where we deposit money.Rivers have banks. Therefore, we

deposit money in rivers."

⦁ "Light travels faster than sound. She is a bright student. Therefore, she
can travel faster than sound."

⦁ " Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better

than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal
happiness."

⦁ "All trees have bark. Justin Bieber has a lot of bark on social media.
Therefore, Justin Bieber is a tree."
 In this argument, "bark" is used with different meanings - the
outer covering of a tree in the first premise and a metaphor for vocal
aggression in the second.

1.2.3 Fallacy of Amphiboly

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when a statement's meaning is

ambiguous due to the structure of the sentence, often arising from
grammatical or structural errors such as punctuation that allow for
multiple interpretations.

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an

ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty
interpretation.

In better sense The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when an argument

relies on ambiguous grammar or sentence structure to create a misleading
interpretation.

This ambiguity can lead to different interpretations of the

argument, allowing the arguer to manipulate the meaning to their
advantage. In essence, it's a fallacy of ambiguity where the arguer exploits
the vagueness or multiple meanings of a sentence to make their argument
seem stronger or more valid than it actually is.

examples

⦁ " I saw a man on the hill with a telescope. Therefore, the man on the
hill has a telescope."

This argument is fallacious because it's ambiguous whether the man

on the hill had the telescope or if the speaker had the telescope.

⦁ " The manager told the employee that he could leave early. Therefore,
the manager can leave early."
 This argument is fallacious because it's not clear whether "he" refers to
the manager or the employee.

⦁ "The CEO told the manager that he needed to improve sales.

Therefore, the CEO needs to improve sales."

In this example, the use of the pronoun "he" is ambiguous because it

could refer to either the CEO or the manager.

⦁ "The sign said 'Fine for parking here,' so I parked there. Therefore, I
shouldn't have received a parking ticket."

This argument is fallacious because the phrase "Fine for parking

here" is ambiguous—it could mean either "It's okay to park here, no
penalty" or "You'll be fined for parking here."

1.3.1 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Fallacies of grammatical analogy are errors in reasoning that occur

when an argument relies on an incorrect or misleading comparison
between linguistic structures or grammatical forms, leading to a flawed
conclusion.

These fallacies often involve assuming that similarities in language

structure imply similarities in meaning or logical validity, when in fact, the
analogy is flawed or irrelevant.

The fallacies of grammatical analogy are grammatically analogous to other

arguments that are good in every respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic
structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good yet be bad.

⦁ This fallacy catagory involves fallacy of composition and fallacy of

division.

1.3.2 Fallacy of composition

 The fallacy of composition occurs when an arguer assumes that what
is true of the parts must also be true of the whole.

In other words, it mistakenly infers that because individual elements

have a certain characteristic, the entire group or collection shares the same
characteristic. This reasoning overlooks the potential complexities of how parts
interact to form a whole, leading to a flawed conclusion.

The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an

argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the
parts of something onto the whole.

examples

⦁ "All the ingredients in this recipe are cheap. Therefore, the entire dish
is cheap."

This assumes that because the individual ingredients are cheap,

the whole dish will also be cheap, which might not be true.

⦁ "Each singer in the choir has a beautiful voice. Therefore, the entire
choir must sound beautiful."

This assumes that because each individual singer has a beautiful

voice, the entire choir will sound beautiful, which may not be the case if
factors like harmony or arrangement are not considered.

⦁ "Each individual in the economy benefits from saving money.

Therefore, if everyone saves more money, the economy as a whole
will prosper."

1.3.3 Fallacy of division

The fallacy of division occurs when it's mistakenly assumed that what
is true for a whole must also be true for its parts.
 The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition
goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts.

The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument

depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class)
onto its parts (or members).

examples

⦁ "This car is expensive. Therefore, its engine must be expensive too."

In this example, it is fallacious to assume that just because the car as

a whole is expensive, every part of the car, such as the engine, must also be
expensive.

⦁ "This company is successful, so every employee must be competent.

Just because the company as a whole is doing well doesn't mean

every individual employee is skilled or competent.

⦁ " The nation is wealthy, so every citizen must be affluent."

Even if a country has a high GDP, it doesn't guarantee that every

citizen is wealthy.

⦁ "The team won the championship because each player is

exceptional."

Explanation: While the team as a whole may be exceptional, it

doesn't necessarily mean that every player on the team is equally
exceptional.

So by far this is all about Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical analogy.

2.1 Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers and

 Uncritical thinkers

2.1.1 Critical thinker

A critical thinker is someone who actively and skillfully analyzes,

evaluates, and synthesizes information, ideas, and arguments, and is able
to draw well-reasoned conclusions and make sound decisions.

and a critical thinker person may exhibit different types of traits. some of
these are :-

⦁ Open-Mindness: Willingness to consider different perspectives and ideas.

⦁ Analytical Skills: Ability to analyze information objectively and accurately.

⦁ Inquisitiveness: Desire to seek knowledge and understanding.

⦁ Logical Reasoning: Ability to reason logically and identify fallacies.

⦁ Skepticism: Questioning attitudes towards information and claims.

⦁ Curiosity: Eagerness to learn and explore new ideas.

⦁ Reflectiveness: Willingness to reflect on one's own beliefs and thoughts.

⦁ Independence: Thinking for oneself rather than accepting ideas unquestioningly.

· Self-awareness: They reflect on their own thinking processes, recognizing

their strengths and weaknesses, biases, and limitations. They are open to
self-improvement and continuous learning.

· Effective communication: Critical thinkers can articulate their thoughts

clearly and persuasively, both orally and in writing. They can also listen
attentively to others and engage in constructive dialogue.

· Intellectual humility: Critical thinkers acknowledge that they don't have all
 the answers and are willing to revise their beliefs or opinions in light of new
evidence or better reasoning.

· Judgment: Critical thinkers exercise sound judgment by weighing evidence,

evaluating arguments, and making informed decisions based on logical
reasoning.

By far these are some of the basic traits of critical thinkers. Developing these traits
takes time and practice, but they are essential for navigating complex issues,
making informed decisions, and fostering intellectual growth.

2.1.2 Uncritical thinkers

An uncritical thinker is someone who accepts ideas, beliefs, or

information without questioning or analyzing them critically. They tend to
rely on assumptions, stereotypes, or emotions rather than logical reasoning or
evidence.

and these uncritical thinker persons exihibits so many characterstics. some of

these are :

⦁ Acceptance without questioning: They tend to accept information or beliefs

without critically evaluating them.

⦁ Limited perspective: They often fail to consider alternative viewpoints or

possibilities.

⦁ motional reasoning: They rely heavily on emotions rather than logical

reasoning.

⦁ Simplistic thinking: They prefer simple explanations and avoid complex or

nuanced understanding.

⦁ Confirmation bias: They seek out information that confirms their

existing beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence.
⦁ Lack of curiosity: They may lack a strong desire to learn or explore
new ideas.

⦁ Resistance to change: They are often resistant to changing their

beliefs or opinions, even in the face of new evidence.

⦁ Overreliance on authority: They may defer to authority figures or

popular opinion without questioning.

⦁ Black-and-white thinking: They see issues as either completely right

or completely wrong, with no middle ground.

⦁ Inconsistent reasoning: They may use different standards of

reasoning for different situations, depending on their beliefs or
emotions.

Besides these traits we shown above also we can investigate

the traits of critical thinkers and uncritical thinkers by compare and
contrasting each of them traits.

I. Open-mindedness: Critical thinkers are open to new ideas, perspectives, and

evidence, willing to consider alternative viewpoints. In contrast, uncritical thinkers
may be closed-minded, sticking to their beliefs without considering other
possibilities.

II. Curiosity: Critical thinkers have a strong desire to learn and understand the
world around them, asking questions and seeking knowledge. Uncritical thinkers
may lack curiosity, accepting information without questioning or seeking further
clarification.

III. Analytical Thinking:Critical thinkers are skilled at analyzing Information,

identifying biases, assumptions, and logical fallacies. Uncritical thinkers may
struggle with analyzing information deeply, accepting arguments without critically
examining their validity.

IV. Self-awareness: Critical thinkers are aware of their own biases,

assumptions, and limitations, actively seeking to overcome them. Uncritical
thinkers may be less aware of their biases, leading to a more limited perspective.

V. Logical Reasoning: Critical thinkers are adapt at using logic to evaluate

arguments and draw conclusions. Uncritical thinkers may rely more on intuition or
emotions, leading to less logical reasoning.

Reference

Books

Title: "Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic"

Author: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Robert J. Fogelin

Publisher: Cengage Learning
Year: 2018

Title: "The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking"

Author: David Kelley

Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company
Year: 2013

websites

https//YourLogicalFallacyIs.com

WWW.historical Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Fallacies