FALLACIES

An argument is generally constructed to prove that its conclusion is true. Any argument,
however, may fail to fulfil this purpose in either of the two ways.

 By assuming a false proposition as one of its premises

 That its premises do not imply its conclusion

In the first case where the premises are not true, the argument fails to establish the truth of its
conclusion even if the reasoning based on those premises is valid. However, it is not special
responsibility of the logician; it is rather the task of inquiry in general, since premises may deal
with any subject matter whatever.

The second case is however, the special province of the logician, whose chief concern is the
logical relations between premises and conclusion. An argument whose premises do not imply
its conclusion is one whose conclusion could be false even if all its premises were true. This
bad reasoning leads the argument fallacious or a fallacy. In the study of logic, it is however
customary, to reserve the term “fallacy” for an argument which, although incorrect, is
psychologically persuasive.

Formal versus Informal Fallacies

The fallacies are dangerous because most of us are, at one time or the other, fooled by some of
them. There are many types of fallacies. Aristotle, the first systematic logician, identified
thirteen, however, a list of 113 has recently been developed. Nevertheless, there are two
popular groups of fallacies; formal and informal fallacies.

Formal Fallacies

A fallacy which may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an
argument is called formal. These are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable
forms.

Example 1:

All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.

Example 2:

All bullfights are grotesque rituals.

All executions are grotesque rituals.
Therefore, all bullfights are executions.

Informal Fallacies

An informal fallacy is one which can be detected only through analysis of the content of the
argument.
Example:

All factories are plants.

All plants contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories contain chlorophyll.

There seems to be nothing wrong with the reasoning used, as it appears in the general form of
this argument below;

All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C.

The content analysis, however, reveals that the word “plants” is used in two different senses,
and we have, in fact, the following form of the argument.

All A are B.
All C are D.
Therefore, all A are D.

Some important types of the informal fallacies are discussed below.

Fallacies of Relevance

1) Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

When as arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells him implicitly or explicitly
that some harm would come to him if he does not accept conclusion, the fallacy of appeal to
force or appeal to stick occurs.

Example:

If you do not agree with my political opinions you will get this course failed.
I believe that Mr. Y is a greatest leader of the country.
Therefore, Mr. Y is the greatest leader of the country.

While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with
my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.

2) Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

This fallacy can be seen when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking
pity from the reader or listener.

Example:

I am solely responsible for the financial support of my children.

If you give me traffic ticket, I’ll lose my license and be unable to drive to work.
If I cannot work, my children and I may starve to death.
Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.
 3) Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent
can prove otherwise. But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough
to secure its truth. In other words, it exists whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply
on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved
true, and thus our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a proposition does not establish either
truth or falsehood.

Example:

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

4) Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

Appeal to authority can be observed when someone argues that a given conclusion is correct
because an expert authority has come to that judgement where the appeal is made to parties
having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. (Of course, if the expert has
authority in the matter at hand it would be a reasonable premise to support conclusion)

Example:

The Head of central bank believes that spiders are insects. Therefore, spiders are
insects.

5) Ad Hominem Argument

This is mirror-image of the appeal to authority, in which we are encouraged to reject a

proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way.
It generally arises when two arguers are making their arguments and counter arguments. It may
exist in two ways.

i. Ad Hominem Absusive

When the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing
the first person.

Example:

"I can't believe that anyone really listens to what the American Rifle Association has
to say. After all, they're just a bunch of ignorant yokels."

ii. Ad Hominem Circumstantial

When the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to

certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
Example:

Of course, he opposes rent control. He owns two apartment buildings himself.

6) Irrelevant Conclusion/Missing the Point (ignoratio elenchi)

This fallacy occurs when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead
directed to proving a different conclusion. That is, the premises support a particular conclusion,
but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.

Example:

Abuse of the welfare system is rampant (widespread) now a day. Our only alternative
is to abolish the system altogether.
 Fallacies of Presumption

The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their
conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit
supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. That is, these
fallacies begin with false or at least unwarranted assumptions, and thus fail to establish their
conclusion.

1) Begging the Question (petitio principii)

In begging the question, the arguer assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to
prove it. That is, the actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent and so the
argument is said to beg the question.

Example:

Of course, human and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how similar
they are.

This begs the question “does the mere fact that human and apes look similar imply that they
evolved from common ancestors?

2) False Cause

The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends
on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. That is, conclusion depends
on the supposition that X cause Y (because the events appear to occur in correlation or in
temporal succession) whereas X probably does not cause Y at all.

Example:

The moon was full on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning I overslept.
Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

3) Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it
implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:

Example:

Have you tried to stop watching too much television?

If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
If not, then you must still be watching too much television.
Therefore, you watch too much television.

We would not willingly agree to the first premise unless we already accepted the truth of the
conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove.
 4) Accident

The fallacy of accident arises when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover. That is to say, a fallacy we commit when we move carelessly or too quickly
from a generalization.

Example:

Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
Mehar Abbasi is a woman.
Therefore, Mehar Abbasi earns less than male talk-show hosts.

Here the universal statement that "Every woman earns less than any man." would obviously be
false and there are many exceptional cases.

5) Converse Accident

A fallacy we commit when we move carelessly or too quickly to a generalization, that is, when
a specific case is applied to a general rule.

Example:

Sherjeel Khan is a left hand batter and a hard hitter.

Therefore, batsmen who are left handers are hard hitters.

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general
principle. Since it's easy for this conclusion to be false even though the premise is true, the
argument is unreliable.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity

In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption, there are several patterns of incorrect
reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. Hence, the arguments may fail because
their formulation contains ambiguous words or phrases, whose meanings shift and change
within the course of the arguments thus rendering it fallacious.

1) Equivocation

Many words have more than one literal meaning and sometimes the several meanings of a word
or phrase become confused-accidently or deliberately-and in such a case the word is being used
equivocally. If we do that in the context of an argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation.
Thus, the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either
explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.

Example 1:

Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority.

Law of gravity is a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.

Here, the word "law" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument, so the link
they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious.

Example 2:

A mouse is an animal.
Therefore, a big mouse is a big animal.

Here, the ambiguous use of relative term “big” makes the argument fallacious.

2) Amphiboly

A statement is amphibolous when its meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or awkward
way in which its words are combined. An amphibolous statement may be true on one
interpretation and false on another. Fallacy of amphiboly occurs when an amphibolous
statement is stated as premises with the interpretation that makes it true and a conclusion is
drawn from it on the interpretation that makes it false. The original statement with true
interpretation is usually asserted by someone other than the arguer, and the syntactical
ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation. Hence, an amphiboly can
occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a
sentence creates its own ambiguity.

Example 1:

John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the
courage to admit his own mistakes.

Here, the word “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to John or to Henry.
Perhaps John told Henry that Henry had made a mistake.
Example 2:

The tour guide said that standing in Greenwich village, the Empire State Building
could easily be seen. It follows that Empire State Building is in Greenwich village.

Here, the dangling modifier makes it unclear if it is observer or the Empire State Building that
is supposed to be standing in Greenwich village?

3) Accent

An argument may prove deceptive and invalid when the shift of meaning within it arises from
changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts. When a premise relies for its apparent
meaning upon one possible emphasis but a conclusion is drawn from it which relies upon the
meaning of the same words accented differently, the fallacy of accent is committed. Thus, the
fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis.

Example 2:

We should not speak ill of our friends.

It follows that we should feel free to speak ill of someone who is not our friend.

The conclusion is drawn when last word in the premises is accented.

4) Composition

The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole; i.e. when it
is argued that because the parts have certain attributes, it follows that the whole has that
attribute too, whereas that attribute cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.

Example 1:

Every course I took in college was well-organized.

Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could
have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective.

Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes
from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore,
college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that
even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow
that the same can be truly said of the whole class.

Example 2:

Every atom in this piece of chalk is invisible.

Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

Example 3:
 Sodium and Chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons.
Therefore, salt is deadly poison.

5) Division

This is exact reverse of composition and the fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto
its parts (or members).

Example 1:

Salt is non-poisonous compound.

Therefore, its elements, sodium and chlorine are non-poisonous.

Example 2:

Royal Society is 300 years old.

Thompson is a member of the Royal Society.
Therefore, Thompson is over 300 years.

Avoiding Fallacies

Informal fallacies of all varieties can seriously interfere with our ability to arrive at the truth.
Whether they are committed unintentionally, in the course of an individual's own thinking, or
deliberately employed in an effort to manipulate others, each may persuade without providing
legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion. If we can identify several of the most common
patterns of incorrect reasoning, we are less likely to slip into them ourselves or to be fooled by
anyone else.