LOGICAL

FALLACIES
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able
to entertain a thought without accepting it”
(Aristotle 384–322 B.C.E).
Lecture Overview

1. What is a logical fallacy?

2. Why study logical fallacies?
3. Types of Logical Fallacies
a. Fallacy of Relevance
b. Fallacy of Insufficient Evidence
4. Tips for Detecting Logical Fallacies in Texts
What is a A fallacy is an error of reasoning. These are flawed statements that
often sound true.
Logical
Fallacy?
Fallacies are errors or tricks of reasoning. We can call a fallacy an error of
reasoning if it occurs accidentally; we call it a trick of reasoning if a
speaker or writer uses it in order to deceive or manipulate the audience.
Fallacies can be either formal or informal.

Most formal fallacies are errors of logic: the conclusion doesn’t really
follow from, or is not supported by, the premises. Either the premises are
untrue or the argument is invalid
For Example:
The following argument contains an error in assuming that one thing and only that one
thing causes a particular outcome:
“Nora feeds Johnny eggplant every day, and Johnny is really healthy; therefore, we
should feed our Sally more eggplant.” While it may be true that eggplant is a healthy
food, Johnny’s eggplant consumption is assuredly not the only factor contributing to his
health. So, it does not necessarily follow that Sally should also eat eggplant every day.

Formal fallacies are created when the relationship between premise and conclusion does
not hold up, or when premises are unsound.
 Informal Fallacies:
• Informal fallacies take many forms and are widespread in everyday discourse. Very often they involve
bringing irrelevant information into an argument, or are based on assumptions that, when examined,
prove to be incorrect
• For example, the following statement plays inaccurately to authority by assuming that one person only
knows best, without bringing facts, multiple informed expert opinions, or relevant research into the
argument:
• “Our governor supports a single-payer health care system for the state, so we should, too.” While the
governor may have information about health care that the average citizen does not have access to,
merely the fact that the governor supports a particular cause is not a reason to agree.
• Informal fallacies often result from the misuse of language and/or evidence.
FALLACIES OF
RELEVANCE
 Fallacies of Relevance
• Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

– Personal Attack
– Attacking the Motive
– Look Who’s Talking
– Two Wrongs Make a Right
– Scare Tactics
– Appeal to Pity
– Bandwagon Argument
– Straw Man
– Red Herring
– Equivocation
– Begging the Question
 Appeal to Force (Scare Tactics)
• Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

• In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone
who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type
might propose:

– If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.
– I believe that George Price was the greatest Prime Minister of Belize.
– Therefore, George Price was the greatest Prime Minister of Belize.

• It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could nevertheless be false. Since that is
possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least
pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.
 Appeal to Pity
Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences
that will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.

• I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.

• If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.
• If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.
• Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

• Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are all
true, so the argument is fallacious.
 Appeal to Emotion
In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong
feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion:

• As all clear-thinking residents of our fine city have already realized, the Mayor’s plan for financing public
education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's
clothing of concern for children.
• Therefore, the Mayor’s plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many
members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth
of the conclusion.
 Appeal to Authority

Each of the next three fallacies involves the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between the
truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority, the
opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a
conclusion. Thus, for example:

• Governor of the Central Bank, Kareem Michael believes that spiders are insects.
• Therefore, spiders are insects.

As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some individual
(however talented or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have some special knowledge
or skill, expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive evidence but never as
deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.
Personal Attack
The mirror image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument, in which we are encouraged to reject
a proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can
happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who
believes it to be true:
• Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.
• But we all know that Harold
. . . dresses funny and smells bad. or
. . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or
. . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 or
. . . doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.
• Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for no
better reason than that someone believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true (and
the intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent
beliefs or shares a common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.
 Appeal to Ignorance
An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove
otherwise. Thus, for example:

• No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.
• Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't
know could nevertheless be so.
Irrelevant Conclusion

Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an
argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.

• All children should have ample attention from their parents.

• Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.
• Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure the truth
of a conclusion focused on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may
succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.
Irrelevant Conclusion
Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an
argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.

• All children should have ample attention from their parents.

• Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.
• Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure the truth
of a conclusion focused on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may
succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.
 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
• Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

– One of the things that can undermine logic is basing an argument on insufficient evidence. There
are several errors that one can make related to insufficient evidence as one chooses evidence to
bolster an argument, and the following fallacies of insufficient evidence occur so frequently that
they are named.
– In other words, using a lack of evidence to try to prove something.
 FALLACIES OF
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
• Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

– Inappropriate appeal to authority

– Appeal to ignorance
– False alternatives
– Loaded questions
– Questionable cause
– Hasty generalization
– Slippery slope
– Weak analogy
– Inconsistency
Hasty Generalizations
A hasty generalization bases a conclusion on too little evidence. An example is:
This winter was colder than last winter: the climate must be getting colder.

This is a logical fallacy of insufficient evidence because more evidence than a

change for one year is needed to establish a climatic trend.

I’ve hired three business majors as student help in the past year. All three were
lazy and shiftless. Obviously, all business majors are lazy and shiftless.
Fallacy of Exclusion
Leaving out evidence that would lead to a different conclusion is called the
fallacy of exclusion.
An example is: In the general elections of 2008 and 2012 Belize City voted red
so it must be a UDP stronghold. In fact, the evidence from 2003, which I
purposely excluded from the sentence above, shows that Belize City went to
the PUP in that election, making this, too, a fallacy of insufficient evidence.
By choosing to begin with the data from 2008, I was able to exclude evidence
that contradicted the conclusion I wished to draw for the sake of this exercise.
False Alternatives
Either we elect a PUP government, or crime rates will skyrocket.
Obviously, we don’t want crime rates to skyrocket. Therefore, we
should elect a PUP government.

The arguer is posing a false dichotomy.

Questionable Cause: Oversimplification
In this fallacy, some aspects of an issue -- generally more subtle ones
-- and their ramifications are not explored.
An example is: The question of funding medical research comes
down to this: do we want to heal the sick and help the injured to
recover -- or not?
This argument ignores questions of funding sources, differing states
of research in different areas of health care, and so on, so it falls into
the category of insufficient evidence. By avoiding reference to any
complexities, including the possibility that some issues may never
have a successful resolution, this argument makes the choice seem
to be solely about goodwill towards the less fortunate.
Questionable Cause: Post Hoc
This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without adequate
reason, that because one event precedes another, that the first
event was the cause of the second.

How do I know that ginseng tea is a cure for the common cold? Last
week I has a bad case of the sniffles. I drank a cup of ginseng tea,
and the next morning my sniffles were gone.
Questionable Cause: Mere Correlation Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without adequate
reason, that because two conditions or events regularly occur
together, that there must be a causal relationship between them.
Every 52 years, the Aztecs would sacrifice tens of thousands of
prisoners to the sun god to avoid the earth coming to an end. The
earth never did come to an end. Therefore, sacrificing thousands to
the sun god has prevented the end of the world.
Slippery Slope
An arguer commits this fallacy when they claim, without sufficient
reason, that a seemingly harmless action will lead to a disastrous
outcome.
John Smith says we must vigorously oppose any legalization of same-
sex marriage. I agree. Once we allow same-sex couples to marry,
next we will be permitting marriages among three or more people.
Next, we will allow people to marry their dogs, cats, and pet boa
constrictors. Finally, people will want to marry their i-phones, BMWs
and Johnnie Walker Black Label, leading to rampant materialism and
alcohol abuse. Clearly same-sex marriage is a threat to the sanctity
of traditional marriage.
Slippery Slope
An arguer commits this fallacy when they claim, without sufficient
reason, that a seemingly harmless action will lead to a disastrous
outcome.
Donald Trump says we must vigorously oppose any legalization of
same-sex marriage. I agree. Once we allow same-sex couples to
marry, next we will be permitting marriages among three or more
people. Next, we will allow people to marry their dogs, cats, and pet
boa constrictors. Finally, people will want to marry their i-phones,
BMWs, and Johnnie Walker Black Label, leading to rampant
materialism and alcohol abuse. Clearly, same-sex marriage is a
threat to the sanctity of traditional marriage.
Slippery Slope
Slippery slope arguments generally follow this pattern:

A, is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so The arguer

claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, on to D.
The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not
be permitted.
In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually lead to
D.
Weak Analogy

When two (or more) things that are not similar in relevant rthe
conclusion of an argument depends upon a comparison between
espects the fallacy of weak analogy is committed.

Why does a family who has no children in a school district have to

pay school taxes? This is like paying cigarette taxes even though you
don’t smoke.
Weak Analogy
When two (or more) things that are not similar in relevance the conclusion of an argument
depends upon a comparison between aspects the fallacy of weak analogy is committed.

Why does a family who has no children in a school district have to pay school taxes? This is
like paying cigarette taxes even though you don’t smoke.

This fallacy generally follows the pattern:

A has characteristics w, x, y, and z.
B has characteristics w, x, and y.
Therefore, B probably has characteristic z, too.
But characteristics w, x, and y are not relevant to z or
A and B have differences relevant to z which are ignored by the arguer
Inconsistency
This fallacy occurs when an arguer asserts inconsistent premises, asserts a premise that is
inconsistent with his or her conclusion, or argues for inconsistent conclusions.
Mickey Mantle: Hey, Yogi, what do you say we eat at Toots’ tonight?
Yogi Berra: That place is old news. Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.
Why Study
Logical Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it is
formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity and
Fallacies? soundness of any argument. For example, if
someone defines a key term in her argument in an
ambiguous, vague, or circular way, her argument
will appear very weak to a critical audience.

Think of this as “intellectual kung-fu: the art of

intellectual self-defense.”
Why Study 1. It will help you develop the vocabulary and skills needed to
Logical better evaluate the arguments of politicians, neighbors,
Fallacies? advertisers, authorities, and people who loved you before
you began studying logic.
2. Knowing the fallacies is also a mark of a well-educated
mind, and it greatly enriches the quality of discussions.
3. Each fallacy is different and knowing the name and pattern
of each can clarify your thinking, improve your debating
skills, and help you better discover truth
4. In short, understanding fallacies will help to strengthen your
own arguments and help you critique others’ arguments.
LET’S PRACTICE: WHAT
FALLACY DOES THE
ARGUER COMMIT?
What's to say against [cigars]? They killed George
Burns at 100. If he hadn't smoked them, he'd have
died at 75. (Bert Sugar, quoted in New York Times,
September 20, 2002)
According to North Korea's official state-run news agency, "a war between North
Korea and the United States will end with the delightful victory of North Korea, a
newly emerging military power, in 100 hours. . . . The U. S. [will] be enveloped in
flames. . . and the arrogant empire of the devil will breathe its last". Given that this
prediction comes from the official North Korean news agency, it is probably true.
(Passage quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof, "Empire of the Devil," New York Times,
April 4, 2003)
Jurors in tobacco lawsuits should award judgments so
large that they put tobacco companies out of business.
Respecting the right of tobacco companies to stay in
business is akin to saying there are "two sides" to slavery
or the Holocaust. (Anti-tobacco lawyer, quoted in George
F. Will, "Court Ruling Expresses Anti-Smoking Hypocrisy,"
Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, May 25, 2003)
Bob: Affirmative action isn't "reverse discrimination." It isn't
discrimination at all. Discrimination is adverse treatment based on an
assumption of a group's inferiority, and no one claims that white
males are inferior.
Peg: But what about sexual harassment? You admitted earlier that
sexual harassment is discrimination, but sexual harassment doesn't
always involve an assumption of inferiority.
Bob: Granted, but sexual harassment is still discrimination because it
denies equal opportunity in employment.
It will be tragic if this country ever legalizes gay
marriage. Mark my words, once that happens,
it won't be long until polygamy and incest are
legal.
Bottom Line
• You need to be aware of these fallacies to present your own viewpoints and engage in open inquiry
effectively. One must avoid making fallacious arguments and identify fallacious arguments
presented by others to productively engage in open inquiry and constructively disagree with the
perspective.
• Watch out for relying too heavily on your own experience and jumping to conclusions. Now that
you know what to look for, you'll spot fallacies in people you disagree with. But if you want to take
the true critical thinking test, over the next month seek, find, and eliminate fallacies in your own
thinking.