Epistemological Foundations 2

Logic and Logical Analysis

1
• Logic and Logical Analysis
• Logic originated from the Greek word “logos”
which means “word,” “speech,” “reason”.
• Logic deals with the principles of valid
reasoning and argument.
• Thus, logic is the study of reasoning and
argumentation.
• It is concerned with the principles and methods
used to distinguish good reasoning from bad
reasoning, and to evaluate arguments for their
truth, validity, and soundness.
2
• At its core, logic is about making
inferences, that is, - drawing conclusions
based on premises or evidence.
• Logic deals with the relationships
between statements or propositions, and
how they can be used to support or
refute other statements or propositions.
• Distinguishing correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning is the task of logic.

3
• Types of Logic
• There are three major branches of logic:
• i) propositional logic,
• ii) predicate logic, and
• iii) modal logic, and many others.
• Each of these branches has its own set of
rules and methods for evaluating
arguments and making inferences.

4
• i) Propositional logic, also known as sentential
logic, is concerned with the relationships
between simple propositions or statements.
• It deals with logical connectives such as "and,"
"or," "not," and "if-then," and is used to
analyze arguments in which the premises and
conclusions are expressed in simple
declarative sentences.
• Propositional logic is a fundamental building
block of more complex forms of logic, such as
predicate logic and modal logic.
5
• Examples of Propositional logic
i. "It is raining outside and the temperature is below freezing." In
this statement, "it is raining outside" and "the temperature is
below freezing" are two separate propositions that are
connected by the logical connective "and."
ii. "Either John is pretending or he is has gone raving mad." In this
statement, "John is pretending" and "he has gone raving mad"
are two separate propositions that are connected by the logical
connective "or."
iii. "If it is sunny outside, then I will go for a walk." In this
statement, "it is sunny outside" is the antecedent and "I will go
for a walk" is the consequent, and they are connected by the
logical connective "if-then."
iv. "It is not the case that it is raining outside." In this statement,
"it is raining outside" is negated by the logical connective "not."

6
• ii) Predicate logic is a formal system of logic that
deals with propositions that contain variables,
such as "for all x, if x is a bird, then x can fly." It
uses quantifiers (such as "for all" and "there
exists") to specify the scope of the variables, and
symbols such as conjunction (∧), disjunction (∨),
negation (¬), and implication (→) to build
complex propositions.
• Predicate logic allows us to reason about sets of
objects and their properties, and to make more
nuanced arguments about the relationships
between different sets of objects.
7
• In simpler terms, predicate logic is a method of
reasoning that helps us analyze statements that
involve conditions, and it allows us to use symbols
and logical operators to make precise statements
and draw valid conclusions.
• It is widely used in mathematics, computer science,
and philosophy, among other fields.
• Examples of Predicate logic
i. "All dogs have four legs." In this statement, "dogs"
is a predicate, "four legs" is a property, and the
quantifier "all" is used to indicate that the
statement applies to every member of the class of
dogs.
8
i. "There exists a person who is taller than 7 feet." In this
statement, "taller than 7 feet" is a property, and the
quantifier "there exists" is used to indicate that there is at
least one member of the class of people who possesses this
property.
ii. "For every natural number n, there exists a prime number
greater than n." In this statement, "natural number" and
"prime number" are predicates, "greater than" is a relation,
and the quantifiers "for every" and "there exists" are used to
express the relationships between the different elements of
the statement.
iii. "Some dogs are black and some are white." In this
statement, "black" and "white" are properties, and the
quantifier "some" is used to indicate that there are at least
two members of the class of dogs, one of which is black and
the other of which is white.
9
• iii) Modal logic is concerned with the relationships
between statements that are qualified by modal
operators such as "necessarily" and "possibly."
• Modal logic allows us to reason about the truth or
falsity of statements in different possible worlds,
and to make inferences about the relationships
between statements across different possible
worlds.
• Modal logic is used in many different fields,
including philosophy, linguistics, and artificial
intelligence, where it is used to reason about the
properties of knowledge, belief, and possibility.
10
• Examples of Modal logic
i. "It is necessary that if it is raining outside, the streets are wet." In this
statement, the modal operator "necessary" is used to indicate that
the truth of the consequent ("the streets are wet") is guaranteed if
the antecedent ("it is raining outside") is true.
ii. "It is possible that I will win the lottery." In this statement, the modal
operator "possible" is used to indicate that the truth of the statement
("I will win the lottery") is not guaranteed, but there is a chance that it
could happen.
iii. "If and only if it is sunny outside, I will go for a walk." In this
statement, the modal operator "if and only if" is used to indicate that
the truth of the antecedent ("it is sunny outside") is necessary and
sufficient for the truth of the consequent ("I will go for a walk").
iv. "It is contingent that the stock market will rise tomorrow." In this
statement, the term "contingent" is used to indicate that the truth of
the statement ("the stock market will rise tomorrow") is not necessary
or impossible, but dependent on various factors and therefore
uncertain.
11
• Importance of Logic
• Logic is the science and art of reasoning well. Logic as
a science seeks to discover rules of reasoning logic as
an art seeks to apply those rules to rational
discourse.
• Logic is important because it allows people to
enhance the quality of the arguments they make and
to evaluate the arguments constructed by others.
• By providing a rigorous framework for evaluating
arguments and making deductions, logic helps us to
think more clearly and make better decisions in all
areas of life.
• Good logic is an effective tool of persuasion.
12
• Logical analysis is concerned with the
relationship between a conclusion and the
evidence given to support it.
• Logical analysis concerns the strength of
evidence linking the premises and conclusions
of arguments.
• The reasoning process may be thought of as
beginning with input (premises, data, etc.) and
producing output (conclusions).
• A premise is a statement on which reasoning
is based. It is a statement containing a set of
beliefs, ‘data’, ‘information’, or ‘facts’.
13
• Reasoning from one premise or set of beliefs to a
second premise or beliefs is called inference.
• To infer is to draw conclusions from premises.
• For examples:
• (1) You see smoke and infer that there is a fire.
• (2) You count 19 persons in a group that originally
had 20, and you infer that someone is missing.
• In each specific case of drawing (inferring) a
conclusion C from premises P1, P2, P3, the proper
concern of logic is whether the inference of C on
the basis of P1, P2, P3, ... is warranted (correct).

14
• A logical inference is called an argument.
• The meaning of argument is not “to quarrel”, but to elucidate
the reasons in support of or against a proposition in order to
provide the validity of a set of beliefs or propositions.
• Thus, an argument is a collection of statements, one of which
is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which
are designated as the premises.
• Or simply put, the premises of an argument are intended to
support (justify) the conclusion of the argument.
• The goal of an argument is to persuade someone that the
conclusion is true, based on the evidence provided by the
premises.
• A good argument is one in which the premises provide strong
and convincing evidence for the conclusion, and the reasoning
from the premises to the conclusion is valid and sound.
15
• It is important to distinguish an argument from
other types of statements, such as explanations,
descriptions, or commands.
• The word ‘statement’ is intended to mean
declarative sentence. In addition to declarative
sentences, there are also interrogative, imperative,
and exclamatory sentences.
• The sentences that make up an argument are all
declarative sentences; that is, they are all
statements.
• Thus, a statement can be defined as “a declarative
sentence, that is, a sentence that is capable of being
true or false.
16
• For example, when you say:
• “It is raining”; “I am hungry”; “God exists”; “I have a lecture at
2pm”; “All politicians are human beings”, etc, you are making
a statement.
• On the other hand, the following are examples of sentences
that are not statements: Are you hungry? Why didn’t you shut
the door?, etc.
• Please note that whereas a statement is capable of being true
or false, a question, or a command, or an exclamation is not
capable of being true or false.
• Note also that in saying that a statement is capable of being
true or false, we are not saying that we know for sure which
of the two (true, false) it is.
• Thus, for a sentence to be a statement, it is not necessary to
know for sure whether it is true, or whether it is false. An
example is the statement ‘God exists’. 17
• Logical validity is a relationship between the
premises and the conclusion such that if the
premises are true then the conclusion is true.
• Logic is not concerned with the truth or falsity
of individual premises.
• A logically correct argument may contain false
premises.
• However, if the premises of a logically correct
arguments are true then there are basis for
accepting the conclusion as true.

18
• The validity of an argument should be
distinguished from the truth of the conclusion.
• If one or more of the premises is false, the
conclusion of a valid argument may be false.
• For example,
• All mammals are four-footed animals;
• All people are mammals;
• Therefore, all people are four-footed animals.
• This is a valid argument with a false
conclusion.

19
• On the other hand, an invalid argument may by
chance have a true conclusion. For example:
• Some animals are two-footed;
• All people are animals;
• Therefore, all people are two-footed.
• This happens to have a true conclusion, but
the argument is not valid.
• Logical validity depends on the form of the
argument, not on its content.
• Thus, the argument is invalid, even though it
has a true conclusion.
20
• Criteria to Ascertain logical Correctness or
Validity of Arguments
• These are
– Deductive validity
– Inductive Validity
• Deductive validity is concerned with the
relationship between the premises and
conclusion.
• A deductive argument is a form of reasoning
in which a conclusion is reached from two
statements or premises.
21
• A deductive argument is called a syllogism.
• Every syllogism must contain three
statements, propositions or premises, no
more no less.
• The statements, or propositions or premises
have to be categorical statements that are
either affirmed or denied.
• Deductive validity has to do with an
argument in which the first and second
premises must guarantee the conclusion.

22
• The premises provide valid grounds
for the conclusion.
• If the premises are accepted as true,
then the conclusion must be true.
• The validity of the argument is based
on the consideration that all of the
factual information in the conclusion
is already contained explicitly or
implicitly in the premises.
23
• For example:
• Premises-1. All political scientists are mortal
–2. Adewale is a political scientist
–3. Adewale is mortal
• The only way in which Adewale could not be
mortal is if he is not a political scientist or if
political scientists are not mortals.
• It is not possible to imagine a situation in
which statement 3 is false while the first two
are true, because statement 3 is already
contained in the first two.
24
• In scientific research we reason from theories
(premises) to hypotheses (conclusion). In a
deductively valid argument, if the hypothesis
(conclusion) is false, then the theory (premise)
must be false.
• Deductive validity is a logical criterion applied
in scientific research in which the observable
truth or falsity of theoretical statements
provides an estimate of the theory’s truth or
falsity.

25
• The term Syllogism is derived from the Greek
words sullogismos meaning “thought or reason”,
"conclusion," "inference“. It is thus exactly the
equivalent of the word Computation, which
means thinking together (Latin con, together,
puto, to think), or reckoning.
• Syllogism is a formal deductive argument made
up of a major premise, a minor premise, and a
conclusion.
• In a syllogism there are two premises or
propositions and a third proposition called the
conclusion.
26
• Syllogism may thus be defined as the act of thought
by which from two given propositions we proceed
to a third proposition, the truth of which necessarily
follows from the truth of these given propositions.
• Thus, syllogism is a form of argument that has two
categorical propositions as premises and one
categorical proposition as conclusion.
• An example of a syllogism is the following
argument:
– Every human is mortal (every M is P);
– Every politician is human (every S is M);
– Therefore, every politician is mortal (every S is P).

27
• Such arguments have exactly three terms (human,
politician, mortal).
• In notational form, syllogism appears thus:
• Major premise: Every M is P.
• Minor premise: Every S is M.
• Conclusion: Every S is P.
• (Note: M – Middle, S – subject, P – predicate).
• In grammar, the Predicate is the part of a sentence
which contains the verb and gives information about
the subject.
• In syllogism, the argument is composed of three
categorical propositions. It is therefore a categorical
syllogism.
28
• In a categorical syllogism, the term that occurs in both
premises but not in the conclusion (human) is the middle
term; the predicate term in the conclusion is called the
major term, the subject the minor term.
• The pattern in which the terms S, M, and P (minor, middle,
major) are arranged is called the figure of the syllogism.
• For Examples,
• If all A are B;
• And all B are C;
• Then, all A are C.
• In words:
• All humans are animals.
All animals are mortal.
Therefore, all humans are mortal.
29
 M

HH

• Circle ‘H’ represents the set of all Humans,

and circle ‘A’ represents the set of all Animals
and circle ‘M’ represents Mortal things.
30
• Rules of Syllogism
• The special rules of syllogism serve to inform us exactly
under what circumstances one proposition can be
inferred from two other propositions. There are eight of
such rules:-
• I. Every syllogism has three and only three terms.
• These terms are called the major term, the minor term,
and the middle term.
• 2. Every syllogism contains three, and only three
propositions.
• These propositions are called the major premise, the
minor premise, and the conclusion.
• 3. The middle term must be distributed once at least, and
must not be ambiguous.
31
• 4. No term must be distributed in the conclusion which is not
distributed in one of the premises.
• 5. From negative premises nothing can be inferred.
• 6. If one premise be negative, the conclusion must be negative;
and vice versa, to prove a negative conclusion, one of the
premises must be negative.
• From the above rules may be deduced two subordinate rules,
which it will nevertheless be convenient to state at once.
• 7. From two particular premises no conclusion can be drawn.
• 8. If one premise be particular, the conclusion must be
particular.
• All these rules are of such extreme importance that will be
desirable for the student not only to acquire perfect
comprehension of their meaning and truth, but to commit them
to memory.
32
• Inductive Validity
• An inductive argument is an argument that is
intended by the arguer merely to establish or
increase the probability of its conclusion.
• In an inductive argument, if the premises are
strong, it will be unlikely that the conclusion is false.
• In inductive reasoning, one makes a series of
observations and infers a new claim based on them.
• There is no standard term for a successful inductive
argument. But its success or strength is a matter of
degree, unlike a deductive argument that could be
valid or invalid.
33
• Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about the
future from the past, but in its broadest sense it involves
reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis
of what is observed.
• Inferences about the past from present evidence
(e.g. archaeology) count as induction.
• Induction could also be across space rather than time, e.g.
conclusions about the whole universe from what we
observe in our galaxy.
• For instance, from a series of observations that a student
goes to the cafeteria at 8am on Tuesdays to drink a cup of
coffee, it seems valid to infer that next Tuesday he will do
the same.
• There are disputations among scholars about the reliability
of conclusions of inductive reasoning. 34
• In our example, it is not certain, regardless of the
number of observations, that the student will always
go to the cafeteria at 8am on Tuesday.
• Also, the observations themselves do not establish
the validity of inductive reasoning.
• Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging
forms.
• Inductive arguments might conclude with some claim
about a group based only on information from a
sample of that group.
• Other inductive arguments draw conclusions by
appeal to evidence or authority or causal
relationships.
35
• Example of inductive argument based on authority: The police
said John committed the murder. So, John committed the
murder.
• Here is an inductive argument based on evidence: The witness
said John committed the murder. So, John committed the
murder.
• Below are stronger inductive arguments based on better
evidence:
• Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the
murder. John’s fingerprints are the only ones on the murder
weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed the
murder.
• Every time I’ve walked by that dog, he hasn’t tried to bite me.
So, the next time I walk by that dog he won’t try to bite me.

36
• But many logicians feel constrained to shy
away from using the term "valid" with
inductive arguments but prefer to use the
term “reliable” instead.
• For an argument to have any merit at all,
whether deductive or inductive, it must have
good connections between all its parts.
• If an inductive argument lacks consistency,
sufficiency, or proper movement, then it
cannot even be considered reliable.
• But if it has these qualities, then it has good
form and is reliable. 37
• Logical Fallacies
• Validity refers to good form. It means that an
argument has good support connections between
its parts.
• Good form can also be fleshed out by reference to
three basic ingredients.
– First, there must be consistency within and between all
the components.
– Second, the premises must be precisely relevant to the
conclusion, sufficient to establish the conclusion to the
degree of the certainty it claims.
– Third, there must be a proper movement of the premises
to the conclusion in such a way that what is implicit in
the premises becomes explicit in the conclusion.
38
• A fallacy is committed when there is
improper dependence of conclusions on
the premises.
• In other words, a fallacy is committed
when the conclusion in an argument or
reasoning does not follow from the
premises.
• Fallacies are statements that might
sound reasonable or true but are actually
flawed or dishonest.
39
• Types of Fallacies
• We shall divide fallacies into four broad categories,
namely:
• i)Fallacies of Relevance; ii)Component Fallacies;
iii)Fallacies of Ambiguity; iv) Fallacies of Omission
• 1. Fallacies of Relevance: These fallacies appeal to
evidence or examples that are irrelevant to the
argument at hand. They include:
• i) Argumentum ad Baculum, or the “Might-
Makes-Right” Fallacy (Appeal to Force)
– This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some
other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept
a conclusion.
40
• When force or the threat of force is used to
suppress the arguments of one side in a
debate, that is a type of one-sidedness.
• Governments are always tempted to use police
powers to prevent criticism of their policies,
and totalitarian governments are frequently
successful in doing so.
• Extremists use threats or actual violence to
silence those who argue against them.
• Audience members "shout down" a debater
whom they disagree with in order to prevent
his case from being heard.
41
• More Examples of Argumentum ad Baculum
• Note: An appeal to force is not limited to
physical harm. It can also be in the form of
psychological trauma, financial distress or
even social consequences. Here are more real
life examples:
• You’d better believe what I tell you or else… .
• Make sure you’re back by 6pm. Do you recall
what happened the last time you were out
late?

42
• ii) Argumentum Ad Hominem (Literally,
“Argument to the Man.” Also called
“Poisoning the Well” and "Personal Attack")
– The evasion of the actual topic by directing the
attack at your opponent.
– It is also attacking or praising the people who
make an argument rather than discussing the
argument itself. This practice is fallacious
because the personal character of an individual
is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness
of the argument itself.

43
• Poisoning the Well: Eg: Prior to a debate, one
person says, “My opponent is a notorious liar. You
can’t believe a word that he is going to say.”
• There are two subcategories:
– Abusive: This is where a proposal or argument is
considered to be false or dangerous merely because
they originated from atheists, Christians, Muslims,
Communists (or any other group).
– Circumstantial: It is a situation where arguments are
made on the basis of the circumstances of the lives of
opponents. If one’s adversary is a clergyman,
suggesting that he should accept a particular argument
because not to do so would be incompatible with the
scriptures is a circumstantial fallacy.
44
• iii) Argumentum Ad Populum ("Argument to
the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent,
often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of
the multitude rather than building an argument.
• It is a favourite device with the propagandist,
the demagogue, and the advertiser.
• Examples: "many people buy
extended warranties, therefore we should buy
one for our new computer.
• Everyone drives over the speed limit, so it
should not be against the law.

45
• There are three basic approaches:
– Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This
argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the
majority of people believes an argument or chooses
a particular course of action, the argument must be
true or the course of action must be the best one.
– Patriotic Approach: “Draping oneself in the flag.”
This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or
correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that
those who disagree are somehow unpatriotic.
– Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad
populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but
rather that “all the best people are doing it.”

46
• iv) Argumentum ad Traditio or
argumentum ad antiquitam (Appeal to
Tradition):
• A conclusion supported solely because it
has long been held to be true.
• This line of thought asserts that a
premise must be true because people
have always believed it or done it.
Alternatively, it may conclude that the
premise has always worked in the past
and will thus always work in the future. 47
• v) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity or
sympathy):
• An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical
issue.
• It is a situation where the main issues are evaded by
raising up points that could evoke pity.
• For example,
– Q - Did you steal the money? A - I’m out of work, my family hasn’t
eaten in two days, my brother-in-law has just been hospitalized.
– Another example was a case in which prosecutors presented
overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents
with an axe. The defence presented a "not-guilty" plea on the grounds
that the boy was an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if
the courts were not lenient. This appeal to emotion obviously seems
misplaced, and it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he
committed the crime.
48
• vi)Argument from Personal Incredulity:
Asserting that an opponent’s argument
must be false because you personally
don’t understand it or can’t follow its
technicalities.
• For instance, one person might assert, “I
don’t understand that engineer’s
argument about how airplanes can fly.
• Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes
are able to fly.”
49
• “I can't imagine how humans could have
evolved from single-celled organisms; it just
doesn't make sense to me. There is no way that
the theory of evolution is right.”
• I cannot imagine how “F” could be true;
therefore “F” must be false.
• On the contrary, that speaker’s own mental
limitations do not limit the physical world—so
airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of
his or her inability to understand how they
work. A person’s comprehension is not relevant
to the truth of a matter.
50
• vii) Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum ad
Verecundium): An appeal to an improper authority,
such as a famous person or a source that may not
be reliable.
• This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of
respect or familiarity with a famous individual.
• It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority
if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of
knowledge.
• On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an
argument about education is fallacious. To cite
Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious
matters is fallacious.
51
• A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In
this sort of appeal, the authority is one who truly is
knowledgeable on the topic, but unfortunately one
who may have professional or personal motivations
that render that judgment suspect: “To determine
whether LU student council is beneficial to this
campus, you interview all the members of the
council alone.”
• Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on
an argument, but basing a substantial part of your
argument on a source that has personal,
professional, or financial interests at stake may lead
to biased arguments.
52
• 2. Component Fallacies: Component fallacies are
errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in
syllogistic terms that fail to overlap. These are:
• i) Begging the Question (also called Petitio
Principii and “Circular Reasoning”):
• It is providing what is essentially the conclusion of
the argument as a premise. That is, when the
reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to
end up with.
• In other words, if writers assume as evidence for
their argument the very conclusion they are
attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of
begging the question. 53
• The most common form of this fallacy is when the
claim is initially loaded with the same conclusion one
has yet to prove.
• For instance, you are begging the question if you say:
• 1. A product is the most expensive because it has the
highest price.
• 2. Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the
hottest new gadget in the market
• 3. Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is
wrong.
• 4. Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes
are deadly.

54
• ii)Hasty Generalization (also called “Jumping to
Conclusions,” "Converse Accident," and Dicto Simpliciter):
• It is basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
• A mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too
few samples to prove a point. In understanding and
characterizing general cases, a logician cannot normally
examine every single example.
• However, if a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic
cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author
commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.
• For eg.“Wale was rude to me. Boys are generally rude!“;
Cashew trees in Bowen University are three feet tall.
Cashew trees don’t grow very large; Fred is very fat, sluggish
and incompetent. Fat people are generally incompetent.
55
• One common type of hasty generalization is the
Fallacy of Accident. This error occurs when one
applies a general rule to a particular case when
accidental circumstances render the general rule
inapplicable.
• For example, in Plato’s Republic, Plato finds an
exception to the general rule that one should return
what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend when
in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks
for them when he is not in his right mind. Ought I to
give the weapons back to him? No one would say that
I ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .” What
is true in general may not be true universally and
without qualification.
56
• Another common example of this fallacy is the
misleading statistic. Suppose an individual
argues that women must be incompetent
drivers, and he points out that last Tuesday at
the Department of Motor Vehicles, 50% of the
women who took the driving test failed. That
would seem to be compelling evidence from
the way the statistic is set forth. However, if
only two women took the test that day, the
results would be far less clear-cut.

57
• iii) False Cause: This fallacy establishes a
cause/effect relationship that does not exist.
There are various Latin names for various
analyses of the fallacy.
• The two most common include these:
• Non Causa Pro Causa: is a Latin phrase that
means "not the cause for the cause," i.e. that
one has confused what is not the cause for the
cause.
• The fallacy is generally referred to by the shorter
phrase "non causa."
• a general, catchall category for mistaking a false
cause of an event for the real cause. 58
• In other words, Non Causa Pro Casua is a
logical fallacy that assumes because two events
coincide with each other, then one event
caused the other.
• Examples:
• i) The rooster crows every morning. Therefore
the rooster causes the sun to come up.
• ii) Putting more police on the streets actually
causes crime to increase! When we increased
the number of cops on the beat, the number of
crimes witnessed by police actually went up.

59
• Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally, "After this,
therefore because of this.“).
• Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc is an error in logic that
assumes the cause of something is another thing that
merely occurred earlier.
• X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
• This type of false cause occurs when the writer
mistakenly assumes that, because the first event
preceded the second event, it must mean the first
event caused the later one.
• Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. It is the
honest writer’s job to establish that connection rather
than merely assert it.
60
• Please note:
• Because post hoc refers to the mistaken
assumption that one thing is caused by
another specific thing, it can only exist when
there is an argument – or something to
compare.
• Simply put, just making a statement, such as
“Sam is an idiot,” does not amount to post
hoc fallacy – it’s simply a statement of opinion,
whether it’s true or not.

61
• The most common examples are arguments that viewing a
particular movie or show, or listening to a particular type of
music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act--to
snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime.
• These may be potential suspects for the cause, but the
mere fact that an individual did these acts and
subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet
conclusively rule out other causes.
• Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life,
suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression
and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions.
• Other potential causes must be examined before asserting
that one event or circumstance alone caused an event.

62
• iv) Ignorantio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion ,
Missing the Point) –
• An argument that may in itself be valid, but does
not address the issue in question.
• This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an
argument purporting to establish a particular
conclusion and directs it to prove a different
conclusion.
• For example, when a particular proposal for
housing legislation is under consideration, a
legislator may argue that decent housing for all
people is desirable. Everyone, presumably, will
agree. 63
• However, the question at hand concerns a
particular measure. The question really isn't,
"is it good to have decent housing," the
question really is, "will that measure provide it
or is there a better alternative?"
• This type of fallacy is a common one in
student papers when students use a shared
assumption--such as the fact that decent
housing is a desirable thing.

64
• v) Red Herring (A related form of ignorantio
elenchi)
• A Red Herring is a deliberate attempt to
change the subject or divert the argument
from the real question at issue, thus throwing
the discussion off track;
• For instance,
• “I should not be suspended for using sim-
enabling device. There are many other
students who are doing dangerous things. The
University authorities should be chasing them,
not harassing a decent guy like me.”
65
• Another example: “Bimpe should not be
hanged for cheating in the first semester
examination. After all, there are other
students who have done far worse things.”
• There could be worse students but that is
another issue!
• The question at hand is, did Bimpe cheat in
the first semester examination, and should she
face the Examination Malpractices Committee
for it?

66
• A variant of Red Herring is the fallacy known
as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"),
which asserts that the advice or argument
must be false simply because the person
presenting the advice doesn't follow it himself.
• For instance, "Reverend Jeremias claims that
theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if
Jeremias himself admited he stole objects
when he was a child?”

67
• vi)Straw Man:
• An argument based on misrepresentation of
an opponent's position
• Also, this fallacy is a type of red herring in
which a writer creates an oversimplified, easy-
to-refute argument, places it in the mouth of
his opponent, and then tries to "win" the
debate by knocking down that empty or trivial
argument.
• In other words, instead of attacking the
person's actual statement or belief, it is the
distorted version that is attacked. 68
• For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a
debate concerning welfare.
• The first Speaker argues, “The Nigerian Government
should provide funding for unemployed militant
youths."
• The second Speaker retorts, "My opponent believes
that some parasites who don't work should get a free
ride from the tax money of hard-working honest
citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong. . ."
• In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a
straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's
statement into an oversimplified form so he can
more easily "win."
69
• Another example of straw man fallacy is
where in a debate a Senator opposes an
addition to the defense budget. Instead of
addressing the opposition, another Senator
• argues that he cannot believe that the first
Senator wants to leave the nation defenseless.
• In both of these examples, the opposers are
only defeating dummy-arguments rather than
honestly engaging in the real nuances of the
debates.

70
• vii) Argumentum Non Sequitur (literally,
"It does not follow"):
• A non sequitur is any argument that does
not follow from the previous statements.
• It involves placing one statement after
another even though there is no logical
relationship between the statements. Eg:
Lawrence is not good at mathematics. He
is too tall.

71
• viii) The "Slippery Slope" Fallacy (also called "The
Camel's Nose Fallacy")
• This is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues
that, once the first step is undertaken, a second
or third step will inevitably follow, much like the
way one step on a slippery incline will cause a
person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom.
• With slippery slope, someone argues that if one
event is allowed to happen, that other, negative,
consequences will surely follow.
• There is no logical evidence for the fact that these
other events will occur.
72
• It is also called "the Camel's Nose Fallacy" because of
the image of a Sheik who let his camel stick its nose
into its tent on a cold night.
• The idea is that the Sheik is afraid to let the camel
stick its nose into the tent because once the beast
sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head,
and then its neck, and eventually its whole body.
• However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any
possibility of stopping the process.
• It simply assumes that once the nose is in, the rest
must follow--that the Sheik can't stop the
progression once it has begun--and thus the
argument is a logical fallacy.
73
• Examples:
• We can't let them send illegal immigrants back
to their home countries. If we do, what will stop
them from deporting everyone they don't like?
• Don't allow your friend to borrow the
N1,000.00 she requested. The truth is that she
is never going to stop borrowing money from
you regularly.
• If we allow the DSA to change the date of the
trade fair, what's next? He's going to want to
cancel trade fair altogether!

74
• 3. Fallacies of Ambiguity: These errors occur with
ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of
which shift and change in the course of
discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can
render arguments fallacious. Fallacies under this
category include:
• i) Fallacy of Equivocation (ambiguous statement)
• It is the misleading use of a term with more than
one meaning.
• It also involves using a word in a different way
than the author used it in the original premise, or
changing definitions halfway through a discussion.
75
• When we use the same word or phrase in
different senses within one line of argument,
we commit the fallacy of equivocation.
• Consider this example:
• “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I
say that death is the end of life; hence, death is
the perfection of life.” Here the word end
means goal in Plato's usage, but it means last
event in the author's second usage.
• Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning
of the word to draw a very different conclusion.

76
• Other examples:
• 1) Examine this dialogue:
• God: "One million years to me is a second." Man:
"What about one million dollars, my Lord?"
• God: "A penny."
• Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?"
• God: "No problem, just a second."
• 2) Noisy children are a real headache.
• Two tablets of aspirin will make a headache go
away.
• Therefore, two tablets of aspirin will make noisy
children go away.
77
• ii) Fallacy of Amphiboly (from the Greek word
“indeterminate”): This fallacy is a subtype of
equivocation.
• An amphiboly is an ambiguity which results
from ambiguous grammar.
• Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical
construction.
• A statement may be true according to one
interpretation of how each word functions in a
sentence and false according to another.

78
• Examples:
• In the command, “Save soap and waste paper,”
the amphibolean use of the word waste results
in the problem of determining whether "waste"
functions as a verb (Should I save the soap but
waste all the paper?) or as an adjective ("Is it
that I should save both the soap and the waste
paper").
• “One morning I shot a grass-cutter in my
pajamas”.
• From a professor on receiving a late paper from
a student: “I shall waste no time in reading this”.
79
• iii) Fallacy of Composition: This
fallacy is a result of reasoning from
the properties of the parts of the
whole to the properties of the whole
itself--it is an inductive error.
• Such an argument might hold that
because every individual part of a
large tractor is lightweight, the entire
machine also must be lightweight.
80
• iv) Fallacy of Division: This fallacy is the reverse of
composition. It is the misapplication of deductive
reasoning.
• One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true
of the whole must be true of individual parts.
• Such an argument concludes that because Mr. Smith
is an employee of an influential company, he must be
an influential individual.
• Another fallacy of division attributes the properties
of the whole to the individual members of the whole.
“Bowen University is a mission University that is built
on spirituality. Segun is a student of Bowen
University. He must be a spiritual individual."
81
• v) Gambler's Fallacy –
• The gambler's fallacy is a situation in which a
gambler believes that a string of past
events will change the probability of future
events occurring.
• It is the incorrect belief that separate,
independent events can affect the likelihood of
another random event.
• Gambler's fallacy occurs when one believes that
random happenings are more or less likely to
occur because of the frequency with which they
have occurred in the past.
82
• For example, let's say you make a bet on whether
your favorite football team will win or lose.
• You bet that they will win, and you're right.
• Before the second game, you bet again that the
team will win, and you turn out to be right.
• This continues five more games, and now the
team is sitting 7-0.
• You start thinking, what are the chances that this
team wins seven times in a row?
• The next one HAS to be a loss, you think, so you
bet against the team. But the team wins again.

83
• Other examples:
• 1. That team has won the coin toss for the last three
games. So, they are definitely going to lose the coin
toss tonight.
• 2. That family has had three baby girls in a row. The
next one is bound to be a boy.
• 3. The sports team has contended for the National
Championship every year for the past five years, and
they always lose in the final round. This year is going
to be their year!
• 4. Maureen has gone on five job interviews this
week and she hasn't had any offers. I think today is
the day she will get an offer.
84
• It's natural to see that string of wins and think
that the streak can't go on forever.
• But that's the gambler's fallacy. In reality, each
win has nothing to do with the previous wins.
• That is, the first win has absolutely no
influence on how the third or the fifth game
will turn out.
• Accordingly, it's perfectly rational to continue
betting on wins if that's what you're inclined
to do.

85
• vi) Proof by Verbosity (Argumentum
Verbosium, Proof by Intimidation) – Proof by
intimidation (or argumentum verbosium) is
a jocular phrase used mainly
in mathematics to refer to a style of
presenting a purported mathematical proof by
giving an argument loaded with jargon and
appeal to obscure results, so that the
audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest
they have to admit their ignorance and lack of
understanding.

86
• It is where the arguer is incredibly verbose,
using a plethora of complex words to make
himself/herself sound incredibly smart, and
dazzle the opposition.
• The opposing side will struggle to understand
what is being said, and appear to "lose" the
debate.
• This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely
statement, "If you can't dazzle them with your
brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."

87
• vii) Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of
Misplaced Concreteness” by Alfred North
Whitehead):
• This is the fallacy of treating a word or an idea as
equivalent to the actual thing represented by the
word or idea, or the fallacy of treating an abstraction
or process as equivalent to a concrete object or thing.
• This fallacy is committed when a person attributes a
concrete and often personal characteristic to a
conceptual abstraction.
• Reification is perfectly acceptable in poetry, but
should not be used in logical argumentation because
it is ambiguous and can obscure important issues.
88
• In the first case, we might imagine a reformer trying to
eliminate abortion by banning all mention of boy-girl
relationships or sex education in schools.
• The problem is that banning all mention of boy-girl
relationships or sex education in schools is not the same
as eliminating abortion.
• In the second case, we might imagine a person declaring
“a war on poverty.”
• In this case, the fallacy comes from the fact that “war”
implies a concrete struggle with another nation.
• “Poverty,” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender
or sign peace treaties, cannot be shot or bombed, etc.
• Reification of the concept merely confuses the issue of
what policies to follow.
89
• Evolutionists frequently commit this fallacy, particularly with the
concepts of nature, evolution, evidence, and science.
• Example 1: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature“. Nature is a
concept, a name we give to the sum total of the sequence of
events in the universe. Nature cannot be “fooled” as if it had a
mind.
• Example 2: “Even while Joe was home, his job was calling him,
luring him back to the office“. Clearly the job was not calling
anyone.
• Example 3: “Nature selects those individuals who are most fit“.
But nature has neither mind nor choice and thus cannot literally
select anything.
• Example 4: “Evolution figured out how to get around these
problems“. But evolution cannot think!
• Example 5: “Natural selection guided the development of all the
species we see on earth“. Natural selection is a concept; it cannot
literally guide anything!
90
• 4. Fallacies of Omission: These errors occur
because the logician leaves out materials in an
argument or focuses exclusively on missing
information. Fallacies of Omission include such
subcategories as:
• i) Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy, the speaker
"stacks the deck" in his favour by ignoring
examples that disprove the point, and listing only
those examples that support his case.
• This fallacy is closely related to hasty
generalization, but the term usually implies
deliberate deception rather than an accidental
logical error.
91
• ii) Argument from a Lack of Evidence
(Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam):
• Appealing to a lack of information to prove a
point, or arguing that, since the opposition
cannot disprove a claim, the opposite must
be true.
• An example of such an argument is the
assertion that ghosts must exist because no
one has been able to prove that they do not
exist.

92
• iii) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum
Ad Speculum):
• This is treating a hypothetical claim as if it were
a statement of fact by making a claim, without
sufficient evidence, about what would have
happened in the past if other conditions had
been present or an event that will occur in the
future.
• It involves trying to prove something in the real
world by using imaginary examples, or
asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred,
Y would have been the result.
93
• For instance, a common example is
the idea that one "owes" her success
to another individual who taught her.
• For instance, "You owe me part of
your achievement for writing a novel.
• If I hadn't taught you how to
recognize logical fallacies, you would
not be able to organize your
thoughts. " Perhaps.
94
• But perhaps the individual would have
learned about logical fallacies elsewhere,
so the hypothetical situation described is
meaningless.
• Another examples include: If I had only
been there for him last night, he
wouldn't have killed himself.
• If only I had practiced a little more on my
backhand, I could have won that tennis
tournament.
95
• iv) Complex Question (Also called the
"Loaded Question“ “ fallacy of
presupposition”);
• It is a situation where someone asks a
question that presupposes something that
has not been proven or accepted by all the
people involved.
• This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so
that the question limits direct replies to
those that serve the questioner's agenda
96
• It is phrasing a question or statement
in such a way as to imply another
unproven statement is true without
evidence or discussion.
• For instance, if I were to ask you
“Have you stopped taking drugs
yet?”
• My supposition is that you have been
taking drugs.
97
• Such a question cannot be answered
with a simple yes or no answer.
• It is not a simple question but consists
of several questions rolled into one.
• In this case the unstated question is,
“Have you taken drugs in the past?”
followed by, “If you have taken drugs
in the past, have you stopped taking
them now?”
98
• v)Fallacy of Cherry
Picking (suppressed evidence,
incomplete evidence) – act of
pointing at individual cases or data
that seem to confirm a particular
position, while ignoring a
significant portion of related cases
or data that may contradict that
position.
99
• vi) Moving the
goalposts (raising the bar) –
argument in which evidence
presented in response to a
specific claim is dismissed and
some other (often greater)
evidence is demanded.

100