FALLACIES

• When an inference does not manage to

provide adequate logical support, a fallacy is
committed and the argument is rendered
invalid.
• A fallacy is a defect in an argument which
misleads the mind.
• The defect may be intentional or
unintentional. If the defect is intentional, we
sometimes call it a sophism.
• The concept of validity and the issue of fallacies may be
addressed either formally or informally.
FORMAL FALLACIES
• A formal fallacy is one which involves an error in the
form, arrangement or technical structure of an
argument.
• The question in view is not whether a conclusion is true
or false, but whether the form of the argument is
correct or incorrect , valid or invalid.
• The concluding statement of an argument may be
objectively true, though the argument is formally
invalid;
• Or the concluding statement may be objectively false,
though the argument is formally valid. Here are some
examples:
Formally Valid Arguments:
1. True and Valid:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
2. False but Valid:
All men are green.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is green.
Formally Invalid Arguments:
3. False and Invalid:
Some men are green.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is green.
4. True but Invalid:
Some men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal
INFORMAL FALLACIES
• Correct reasoning involves clear expression
and valid form. Formal fallacies are a matter of
invalid form. Informal fallacies are a matter of
unclear expression.
• Formal fallacies deal with the logic of the
technical structure, while informal fallacies
deal with the logic of the meaning of language.
• The word "informal" does not here mean it is
inferior, casual or improper. It only means that
our focus is not on the form of the argument,
but on the meaning of the argument.
• An informal fallacy involves such things as: the
misuse of language, words or grammar,
misstatements of fact or opinion,
misconceptions due to underlying
presuppositions, or just plain illogical
sequences of thought.
• Informal fallacies are not fallacies generated
due to any peculiarity in the form of the
argument but there may be linguistic reasons
pertaining to the phenomena.
• Informal fallacies can be put into the following
kinds:
1. The fallacy of ambiguity,
2. The fallacy of unwarranted assumption and
3. The fallacy of relevance.
1. THE FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY
This are grouped into the following:
Equivocation: When there is a chance of
misunderstanding based on words used
especially, when the word used has two senses.
He is a real pain the neck
The government has the right to tax citizens. So
it is right to impose the new tax.
Amphiboly: this is a fallacy of syntactic ambiguity.
Research confirmed that the virus is not deadly as
doctors portrayed
The president has cancelled a trip to the US to
play golf.
Composition: These are mistakes of attributing
the property of the constituent parts of a whole
to the whole itself.
None of the children in this class can make a
terrible noise
Therefore, together they will not be able to make
a terrible noise.
Division: A mistake of attributing the properties
of the whole to its parts.
The people of the Volta region voted massively
for the NDC
Therefore, each and every Voltarian is a NDC
Other types of fallacy of ambiguity include:
• Emphasis
• Straw man fallacy and
• Red herring fallacy
2. FALLACY OF UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION
An argument suffers from a fallacy of
unwarranted assumption when it either contains
a premise that is poorly based or a conclusion
that is inadequately supported.
The types are:
Begging the question: An argument begs the
question if the conclusion that it intends to
prove is already assumed in its premise.
Tobacco chewing is a cause of oral cancer
because there is a causal relations between
tobacco and cancer.
Complex questions: This occurs when we ask a
question that makes a hidden assumption that is
unwarranted.
So have you stopped lying?
Hasty generalisation: This is when one makes a
generalisation based on only a few instances.
Someone sneezed when I went out today. I
missed my interview.
So whenever someone sneezes when we are
going to do some important work, we will fail at
doing that work properly
Other examples of fallacy of unwanted
assumption are:
• Biased sample
• Unqualified generalisation (dicto simpliciter)
• False cause
• Coincidence
• Post hoc fallacy
• Common cause fallacy
• Slippery slope
• Gambler’s fallacy and
• False dichotomy
3. THE FALLACY OF RELEVANCE.
• This occurs when we fail to provide adequate
reasons for believing in the conclusion we
wish to derive.
 INFORMATION AND ITS EVALUATION

Problems associated with perception as a source

of information when constructing and
reconstructing persuasive arguments are:
• 1. Intellectual responsibility
• This is where we need to exercise intellectual
responsibility while we sift out information
from perceptual data which if not may render
the information invalid
2. Rational responsibility
• To infer information from what we see, we
must exercise reason, which if not may render
the information unreliable. Also, where we
have reasons for our convictions but do not
have reasons that would justify those beliefs.
3. Eye for relevance
• Where one should be able to sift what is
relevant from what is seen, for which if not,
perception or data may be considered
unreliable
4. Looking beyond the obvious
• The act of perception should make one go beyond
what one sees in data, which if not done can make
data available irrelevant for argument.
5. Sensitivity to context:
• The context in which things are seen should not
influence the way in which we see it.
6. Recognising and checking emotional biases
• One must not allow his or her emotional biases to
distort his or her vision. These biases should be
handled and recognized and know that they can
influence our biases.
 points that one should keep in mind when evaluating
information provided by experts/testimony.

Authority
• First judge whether the person in question is
an expert on the issue at hand. Try to judge
whether the expert’s claims are objective by
analyzing the language used.
Objectivity
• Do not consider the person’s claims objective
if the language used is emotional, persuasive
and filled with rhetoric ploys.
Accuracy
• When encounter with any information, see
who is providing the information, explanation
of methods used to obtain the information,
list of references and sources used, evidence
that the content was reviewed by other
authorities for accuracy, a lack of obvious
errors or omissions, information on how
studies were conducted and analysed, a lack
of spelling, grammatical and typographical
errors and visible care taken to detect all of
these problems and avoid content errors.
Coverage
• See if all the things that are in question have
been addressed by the information provided.
Relevance
• See if the information provided is relevant for
the issue at hand. See if you really need the
information at all, practicable and useful.
Time aspect
• How current the information is and how
relevant is it to today’s phenomenon. Old and
outdated information should be avoided.
 CRITICAL THINKING AND CRITICAL
READING.
• Critical thinking is a technique for evaluating
information and ideas, for deciding what to
accept and believe.
• Critical reading is a technique for discovering
information and ideas within a text.
 ways by which one can evaluate an
academic work or a text from a newspaper.

1. Whether the subject matter has been

properly identified and discussed
2. Whether all the concepts mentioned and all
the terms used in the book have been well
explained and clearly defined
3. Whether the claims made in the book are
substantiated by evidence
4. Whether the causal connections claimed in
the work have been proven
5. Whether any exceptions to the claims made
have been addressed and explained adequately
6. Whether the relation between the claim and
our commonsensical beliefs, if any, has been
addressed
 Questions to ask in order to see if our
writing can indeed convince others
1. Is your position clearly stated? Is it in focus
throughout the paper?
2. Does your reasoning lead to a logical
conclusion?
3. Is your language understandable?
4. Are your definitions clearly explained? Are
they reasonable?
5. Is your writing clear and concise?
6. Do you state and defend your assumption?
7. Is your position well informed?
8. Are your sources identified? Are they
credible?
9. Are your generalizations reasonable?
10. Are your hypotheses and predictions sound?
11. Have you covered well-known alternatives
views
12. Are you being fair and open-minded?
13. Will your paper convince your reader?
IN THE CASE OF A BOOK, ITEMS THAT MUST APPEAR
IN THE REFERENCING SECTION/ CITATION?
1. The name of the book, which should be written in
italics.
2. The name of the author
3. The year of publication
4. The name of the publisher
5. The place of publication
6. The pages that are referred.