Fallacy

A type of argument that seems to be

correct, but contains a mistake in
reasoning.
Sometimes a piece of reasoning seems to
be sound but in reality it is not the case.
Actually it involves some rules of logic.
Such a piece of unsound reasoning is called
a fallacy.
So a fallacy is an argument which appears
to be valid which in reality is not. It is an
invalid argument which is camouflaged and
which can mislead us by show of truth.
• A fallacy may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
In the former case, the fallacy is called Paralogism and in the
latter case it is Sophism. So Paralogism is a fallacy of which
the reasoner is not aware whereas Sophism is a fallacy which
is employed with the intention of deceiving another. Anyhow,
Logic is not concerned with the intentions of a person
employing an argument. Hence, whether a fallacy is
committed intentionally or un intentionally, it is a fallacy all
the same and should be treated as such by Logic.
• The basic objective of studying fallacies is that we may learn
how to avoid them. Studying fallacies helps us understand
where invalid thinking lies. It shows a man an argument
which he recognizes to be unsound. He knows more clearly
what are the conditions of valid reasoning. It is unsatisfactory
to see an argument is faulty but unable to see where the fault
actually lies. Sometimes we see something but don’t see
through it. See not merely picture but dive deep into the
depth of the portrait. So it seems imperative and useful to
study fallacies in order to avoid reasoning invalidly.
Classification of Fallacies
• It is very difficult to give satisfactory classification of fallacies
because error knows no laws. It has countless possibilities. “ Truth
may have its norms but error is infinite.” However, there is traditional
or generally accepted classification of fallacies.
• Aristotle is of the view that a false argument may err either in
language or in thought. He divided fallacies into two major groups:

1) Fallacies in Diction; fallacies which arise from the misuse of

language.

2) Fallacies extra dictionem; fallacies which arise from defects other

than those language.
Fallacies in Diction ( fallacies due to language) ;

1-Amphiboly
2-Composition
3-Division
4-Accent
Amphiboly
• This fallacy arises when an ambiguous grammatical
structure of a sentence produces misunderstanding.
The ambiguity here lies not in words but in sentence,
owing to its ambiguous construction. E.g.
• Pyrrhus the Romans shall, I say, subdue. Pyrrhus
interpreted it to mean that he shall subdue the Romans,
whereas the oracle later on explained that the real
meaning was that the Romans shall subdue Pyrrhus.
Composition
• It consists in going from the distributive to the collective use of term.
• This fallacy is committed when we compose or put together what was
taken distributivity. For example:
• Three and two are odd and even. (taken separately)
• Five is three and two.
• Therefore five is odd and even. (Taken Collectively)
• All atoms are invisible.
• All material things are composed of atoms
• Therefore all materials things are invisible.
Division
• This fallacy is opposite to the fallacy of composition. It
consists in going from the collective to the distributive use of
a term. For example it would be a fallacy of Division to argue
that the staff of a college is in favour of the rustication of a
certain student, therefore every member of the staff is in
favour of his rustication. Another example:
• Six is an even number.
• Five and one are six.
• Therefore, five and one are even numbers.
Accent
• This fallacy consists in perverting the intended
meaning of a sentence by false emphasis in speaking
or writing. For example :
• “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour”.
Fallacies Extra Dictionem
• These are fallacies which are due to thought and are given as
under:
• 1- Accident
• 2-Secundum Quid.
• a) Arguing from a general rule to a special case.
• b) Arguing from a Special case to a general rule.
• c) Arguing from one special case to another special case.
Accident
• This fallacy consists in confusing an unessential difference with an
essential difference or an unessential resemblance with an essential
resemblance. The fallacy of accident arises when we suppose that if a
thing resembles or is different from another in one or more respects, it
must resemble it or be different from it in all respects. For example:
• You are not what I am
• But I am a man
• Therefore you are not a man.
• It would be a fallacy of Accident to argue that, because
water is liquid, and ice is water, therefore ice is liquid.
• To be ice is an accident of water and therefore ice is
not a liquid.
Arguing From a general rule to a special case

• It consists in assuming that what holds good as

general rule will also hold good under special
circumstances. It means that it consists in applying
a general rule to a particular case to which is
incapable because of some special conditions.
Hence arguing from a simple statement to a
statement under special conditions would be
fallacy.
•For example:
•To help a man in distress is right;
therefore to rescue a prisoner from
police custody is also
Arguing from a special case to a general rule

• It consists in arguing that what holds good under

special circumstances will also hold good as a
general rule. In other words arguing from a
statement under certain conditions to a statement
without any condition. For example:
• Because exercise is injurious during illness;
therefore it is injurious at all times.
Arguing from one special case to another special case

• It consists in assuming that what holds good in one

case will also hold good in another case. In other
words it means arguing from a statement under one
condition to a statement under another condition.
• For example:
• Because democracy has proved successful in England;
therefore it will also prove successful in Pakistan.
Ignoratio Elenchi
• It literally means ‘Ignorance of refutation’. If we want to refute
a statement we should prove its contradictory; and if we prove
something else, we show that we do not know what refutation
requires. Of course, every fallacious refutation shows that we
are ignorant of what is required to be refuted or proved. In
other words this fallacy is known as the Fallacy of Irrelevant
Conclusion. Hence, Ignoratio Elenchi means an argument
which is not to the point, or which evades the point at issue. It
consists in ignoring the conclusion to be proved. In other
words, in arguing to the wrong point.
• For example:
• To prove the efficacy of a medicine, a doctor may refer
to the difficulties in its preparation. Old age is wiser
than youth; therefore we must accept what our
ancestors held to be right.
• The Theory of Evolution is right because it is given by
a genius like Darwin.
• Ignoratio Elenchi appears in the following different
forms:
Argumentum ad Misericordiam
• It is a form of ignoratio elenchi in which an argument
shows that a person is unfortunate and deserves pity,
when it should be shown that he is innocent. For
example:
• A student who is suspected of copying in an
examination may try to prove his innocence by making
an appeal to the superintendent that his career will be
ruined if a report is made against him.
Argumentum ad Hominem
• It is a form of Ignoraio Elenchi in which, being called
upon to refute a thesis, we prove something instead about
the person who maintains it.
• In other words, it is an argument which rests, not upon the
merits of the case, but upon the character or position of the
person who maintains it. For example: If a change in a
certain law is proposed by a person, it would be
argumentum ad hominem to argue that a proposer is not
the right man to bring it forward.
Argumentum ad Populum
• It is a form of Ignoratio Elenchi, which a consists in
addressing arguments to the masses to excite their emotions
or prejudices and to prevent them from forming a
dispassionate judgment upon the case under discussion. It is
the strongest weapon in the hands of mob-orator. For
example:
• Are you going to permit those who have robbed you of the
land that is your own and to go on to rob you of the very
bread that is to feed your poor hungry children ?
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
• It is a form of Ignoratio Elenchi in which an attempt is made to
defend one’s position by trading on the ignorance of the person
addressed. A man may defend his position by calling upon his
opponent to disprove it; and if the opponent is unable to disprove
it, his failure is taken as a proof of one’s own position. For
example:
• If I say that the earth is resting on horns of a bull, and you can not
disprove it, it does not mean that it is proved that the earth is
resting on the horns of a bull. Aright thing is not that which is not
disproved but that which is proved.
Argumentum ad Baculum

•It is a form of Ignoratio Elenchi in

which an appeal is made to physical
force to convince an opponent. “ To
knock a man down who differs you in
opinion may prove your strength, but
hardly your Logic.”