By:- Israr K.

Raja
Islamabad, Pakistan
 Meaning of Fallacy
 a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound
arguments.
 Other words for Fallacy:-
 Misconception
 Mistaken belief
 Misbelief
 Delusion
 False notion
 Definition of Fallacy
 A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty
reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an
argument.
 A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
to be better than it really is
 Types of Fallacy
 As we have discussed ,Fallacies are mistaken beliefs
based on unsound arguments.
 They derive from reasoning that is logically incorrect,
thus undermining an argument's validity.
 There are many different types of fallacies, and their
variations are almost endless.
 Given their extensive nature, here is a list of common
fallacies so you'll be able to develop sound conclusions
yourself, and quickly identify fallacies in others'
writings and speeches.
Common Types of Fallacies
 Appeal to Authority:- Someone accepts a truth on blind faith just
because someone they admire said it.
 Appeal to Ignorance:- Accepted because no one else can prove
otherwise.
 Appeal to Pity :- Gaining acceptance by pointing out an unfortunate
consequence that befalls them.
 Begging the Question:- Also called Circular Reasoning. This type of
fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the
phrasing of the question itself.
 False Dilemma:-These fallacies occur when someone is only given two
choices for possible alternatives when more than two exist.
 Red Herring:- It occurs when someone uses irrelevant information to
distract from the argument.
 Slippery Slope:- when someone assumes a very small action will lead
to extreme outcomes.
Common Types of Fallacies
 Straw Man Fallacy :- These fallacies occur when someone appears to
be refuting the original point made, but is actually arguing a point that
wasn't initially made.
 Sweeping Generalizations :- These fallacies occur when a very broad
application is applied to a single premise.
 Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person:-acceptance or rejection of a
concept is rejected based on its source, not its merit.
 Band Wagon :-These fallacies occur when a proposition is claimed to
be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
 Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc :- These fallacies occur when it is
assumed that, because two things occur together, they must be related.
 Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc:- when it is assumed that, because one
thing happened after another, it must have occurred as a result of it.
 Ambiguity Fallacy
 Also known as: ambiguous assertion, amphiboly,
amphibology, semantical ambiguity, vagueness.

 When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is

used within the argument; therefore, does not support
the conclusion.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Equivocation
 Amphiboly
 Accent
 Composition
 Division
 Fallacy of Equivocation
 Equivocation is the fallacy that occurs when the meaning
of an ambiguous term is covertly switched during the
reasoning.
 An ambiguous term is used with one meaning at the
beginning of the argument, but then used with a different
meaning later in the argument.
 Because many words have more than one literal meaning,
there are many opportunities of this fallacy to occur.
 A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
 Fallacy of Amphiboly
 The fallacy of Amphiboly occurs when a syntactic
(grammatical arrangement of words in a sentence) ambiguity
allows one meaning to be used in the premise and another
meaning to be used in the conclusion.
 Example of Amphiboly:-
 “I am opposed to taxes which slow economic growth.”
 Is the speaker opposed to all taxes, because they slow
economic growth, or just taxes that slow economic growth?
(Though grammatically, as written it would indicate the
latter, but if a comma were added after taxes, it would
indicate the former.)
 Fallacy of Accent
 The fallacy of accent (also referred to as misleading
accent) is a type of ambiguity that arises when the
meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an
unusual verbal emphasis or when, in a written
passage, it is left unclear on which word the emphasis
was supposed to fall.
Fallacy of Composition
 The fallacy of composition arises when a conclusion is
drawn about a whole based on the features of its
constituent elements when, in fact, no justification is
provided for the inference.
 There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which
are known by the same name (because of the high degree
of similarity).
 Here are examples of the fallacy:
 The human body is made up of cells, which are invisible.
Therefore, the body is invisible.
 Both sodium and chlorine are to harmful humans,
therefore any combination of sodium and chlorine, for
example table salt, will be dangerous to humans.
 Fallacy of Division
 A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically
that something true for the whole must also be true of
all or some of its parts.
 For example:
 The 2nd grade class 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
Relevance definition: the degree to which something is
related or useful to what is happening or being talked about
 Fallacies of Relevance
 A fallacy of relevance is one where the argument in which it
occurs has premises that are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion.
 They appear to make sense though which makes them difficult to
identify.
 What is flawed about an argument with a fallacy of relevance is
that the connection between the premises and conclusion is
emotional .
 To recognize this kind of fallacy, you need to be aware of the
difference between arguments that use genuine evidence and
those that rely on an emotional appeal.
 Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by
offering considerations that simply don't bear on its truth.
Identifying Fallacies of Relevance
 Appeal to Force:-Occurs whenever an arguer puts forth a
conclusion and either states or implies that if the listener
does not agree then he will somehow be harmed. The
threat can either be physical or psychological. E
 Examples: “Either agree that I’m king of the world or I’ll
beat you up!”
 “ Give me $200 or I’ll tell your wife you’re cheating on her.”
 Appeal to Pity:- Occurs when an arguer tries to support a
conclusion by getting pity or sympathy from the listener.
 Examples:
 “ Don’t give me a ticket, officer. My wife has cancer and my
aunt just had a stroke!”
Identifying Fallacies of Relevance
 Appeal to the people:-
 The arguer manipulates the values and beliefs of people in order to make them
believe a certain conclusion.
 There are two ways of doing this:
 Direct approach:-
 An arguer addresses a large group of people and tries to excite them and make
them emotionally charged, so he can win their acceptance for his argument.
 Examples: various politicians
 Indirect Approach :-
 Arguer does not focus on the crowd itself but at certain people and how they
relate to the crowd as a whole.
 Bandwagon argument :- If you don’t go along with the argument, you’ll be
left out. Persuaded to join in, so you can be a part of the crowd.
 Appeal to vanity:- Argument that compare you with someone that is admired
or pursued, and if you agree then you’ll be admired too.
 Appeal to Snobbery :- Similar to vanity, since it implies that you’ll be a part of
an elitist crowd if you go along with the arguer.
Identifying Fallacies of Relevance
 Argument against the person :-
 One person makes an argument, and the other person replies with a
criticism but not one made about the argument, but about the person
himself.
 Ad hominem abusive :-
 Standard ad hominem argument, where the second person criticizes
the arguer instead of his argument.
 Example:
 “ John says I should quit smoking because it’s bad for me. But he’s
practically an alcoholic, so who is he to give me advice about my
health?”
 Ad hominem circumstantial :-
 Similar to ad hominem, except the second person criticizes
circumstances or conditions surrounding the arguer.
 “ You just want me to break up with my girlfriend so you can ask her
out!”
Identifying Fallacies of Relevance
 Tu quoque (you too) :-
 The second person criticizes the arguer for acting like a hypocrite
or for arguing in bad faith.
 Example:
 “ You’re one to yell at me about being messy. Your bedroom looks
like a pigsty!”
 But remember, there are times when a criticism against a person
can be properly backed up.
 “ You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you steal cars. Therefore,
you’re a bad person.”
 The main point here is that the second person is bad, not that
his argument is bad, and the premises here (his behaviour) are
supportive of the conclusion, so no fallacy is committed.
Identifying Fallacies of Relevance
 Accident:-
 Fallacy that is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was
never meant to cover.
 Example:
 “ Guns are responsible for many accidental deaths. Therefore, they threaten the
lives of police officers for carrying them.”
 Police officers use guns as a way of maintaining peace, and this belief does not
cover them and their role in society.
 Straw man:-
 An arguer distorts his opponent’s argument then defeats that changed
argument. He then concludes that he has defeated the original argument as
well.
 Example:
 “ Many people stand in support of women’s rights. They argue it’s a woman’s
right to choose whether to have an abortion, but abortion is murder. How can
these people defend murder?”
Identifying Fallacies of Relevance
 Missing the point:-
 In this fallacy, the premises actually support a conclusion, but a different conclusion than
the one presented in the argument.
 Usually, it’s possible to figure out the correct conclusion since it is what actually follows
from the premises.
 Example:
 “ American prisons are becoming overpopulated. That means we need to start executing
more people to get more space!”
 The logical conclusion for this argument is that we need to either build more prisons or
find different ways to rehabilitate prisoners, not that we need to kill more people.
 Red Herring:-
 This fallacy involves changing the subject of an argument to a slightly different topic, to
throw the other person off.
 Then a conclusion is drawn based on this altered argument.
 Example:
 “ People say that fast food is cheap and not hard to get. But family dinners are an
important part of keeping a household together. Without quality time, most families
would fall apart! Parents need to shift gears and take action if they want to stay in touch
with their kids.”
 References
 https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+fallacy&rlz=1C
1CHBF_enPK865PK865&oq=what+is+fallic&aqs=chrome.1.
69i57j0l7.7881j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-
fallacies.html
 https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFa
llacies/17/Ambiguity-Fallacy
 https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recognizing_Fallacies/Falla
cies_of_Ambiguity
 https://www.slideshare.net/nicklykins/32-fallacies-of-
relevance