INFORMAL FALLACIES;

(1). AD HOMINEM:
- Definition: Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the
argument itself. This fallacy involves attacking the person making an argument rather than
addressing the argument itself. It focuses on discrediting the individual rather than engaging
with the substance of their argument
- Example: "You shouldn't listen to John's advice on dieting because he's overweight
himself."
- Explanation: Instead of addressing the validity of John's argument about dieting, the
focus is shifted to John's weight, which is irrelevant to the argument.
- Example 2: "You shouldn't listen to Susan's proposal for improving the school because she's
always late and disorganized."
- Explanation: Instead of evaluating the merits of Susan's proposal, the focus is shifted to
her personal traits, which are irrelevant to the proposal's validity.
- Example 3: "We can't trust Sam's opinion on politics because he's always late for
meetings."
- Additional Note: Focus on the argument, not personal traits.

(2). . APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:

- Definition: Believing a claim because someone who is perceived as an authority endorses
it, even if the authority is not an expert on the subject. This fallacy occurs when someone
relies on the endorsement or opinion of an authority figure to support their argument, even if
the authority lacks expertise in the relevant subject matter.

- Example: "The celebrity says this product is the best, so it must be true."
- Explanation: Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn't mean they are
knowledgeable about its effectiveness or benefits.
- Example 2: "Dr. Smith, a renowned physicist, says that climate change isn't real, so it
must be a hoax."
 - Explanation: Regardless of Dr. Smith's expertise in physics, their opinion on climate
change should be evaluated based on evidence and research in the field of climate science,
not solely on their authority in a different domain.
- Example 3: "Believe me, I'm a doctor, and I say this product will cure all your ailments."
- Additional Note: Expertise in one area doesn't guarantee expertise in another.

(3). . STRAW MAN:

- Definition: Misrepresenting or exaggerating someone else's argument to make it easier to
attack or refute. Instead of engaging with the actual argument presented, the opponent
constructs a distorted version of it.
- Example: "Opponents of the new education policy want children to remain uneducated."
- Explanation: This misrepresents the opponents' argument, which might be more nuanced,
as simply wanting children to be uneducated.
- Example 2: “"Opponents of stricter gun control want everyone to have unrestricted access
to firearms."
- Explanation: This misrepresents the argument of those advocating for gun control, who
are typically seeking regulations to improve safety, not advocating for unlimited access to
guns.
- Example 3: "Those who want stricter gun laws actually want to take away all our guns."
- Additional Note: Address the real argument, not a misrepresented version of it.

(4). . APPEAL TO IGNORANCE:

- Definition: Assuming a claim is true (or false) because it hasn't been proven false (or
true). This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true (or false) simply because
it hasn't been proven false (or true). Lack of evidence is used as evidence itself.

- Example "Ghosts must exist because no one has proven that they don't."
- Explanation: Lack of evidence for or against something doesn't automatically prove its
existence or non-existence.
- Example 2: "No one has proven that aliens don't exist, so they must be visiting Earth."
 - Explanation: The absence of evidence for or against the existence of aliens doesn't prove
their existence. Belief in extraterrestrial visitors should be based on empirical evidence, not
the absence of evidence to the contrary.
- Example 3: "There's no evidence that ghosts don't exist, so they must be real."
- Additional Note: Lack of evidence doesn't prove something's existence or non-existence.

(5). . BANDWAGON FALLACY:

- Definition: Arguing that because something is popular or widely believed, it must be true
or good. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that because something is popular or
widely believed, it must be true or good. The premise is that the majority opinion determines
truth or value.

- Example: "Everyone is watching this TV show, so it must be worth watching."

- Explanation: Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's of high
quality or worth your time.
- Example 2: "Everyone is buying the new smartphone, so it must be the best one on the
market."
- Explanation: The popularity of a product doesn't necessarily indicate its quality or
superiority compared to other options. Consumer decisions should be based on individual
needs and preferences, not just trends.
- Example 3: "All my friends are buying this brand of shoes, so they must be the best."
- Additional Note: Popularity doesn't equal truth or quality.

FORMAL FALLACIES:

(1).. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT:

- Definition: Drawing an invalid conclusion from a conditional statement by affirming the
consequent. This fallacy incorrectly concludes that if a certain result is true, then the initial
condition must also be true. It's like saying, "If it's raining, then the streets are wet. The
streets are wet, so it must be raining."
- Example :
 - If it's raining, the streets will be wet.
- The streets are wet.
- Therefore, it's raining.
- Explanation: The streets could be wet for reasons other than rain, so the conclusion
doesn't logically follow.
- Example 2:
- If it's raining, the streets will be wet.
- The streets are wet.
- Therefore, it's raining.
- Explanation: The streets could be wet for reasons other than rain, such as someone
washing them or a nearby sprinkler, so the conclusion doesn't logically follow.
- Additional Note: Other factors can cause the streets to be wet, like someone watering
plants or a burst pipe.

(2). . DENYING THE ANTECEDENT:

- Definition: Drawing an invalid conclusion from a conditional statement by denying the
antecedent. This fallacy incorrectly concludes that if a certain result is false, then the initial
condition must also be false. It's like saying, "If it's raining, then the streets are wet. It's not
raining, so the streets aren't wet."
- Example:
- If it's raining, the streets will be wet.
- It's not raining.
- Therefore, the streets won't be wet.
- Explanation: The streets could still be wet due to other reasons like a water leak, so the
conclusion is not necessarily true.
- Example 2:
- If it's raining, the streets will be wet.
- It's not raining.
- Therefore, the streets won't be wet.
- Explanation: The streets could still be wet for reasons other than rain, such as residual
moisture from a previous rainfall or a water leak, so the conclusion is not necessarily true.
- Additional Note: The streets could still be wet from a previous rain or other reasons.
(3). . FALLACY OF COMPOSITION:
- Definition: Assuming that what is true for one part of something must also be true for the
whole. This fallacy assumes that what's true for the parts must be true for the whole. It's like
saying, "Each piece of the puzzle is easy, so the whole puzzle must be easy."
- Example: "Each player on the team is outstanding, so the whole team must be
outstanding."
- Explanation: Just because individual players are outstanding doesn't guarantee the overall
quality of the team, as team dynamics and coordination also play a significant role.
- Example 2: "Each brick in the wall is small and lightweight, so the entire wall must be easy
to lift."
- Explanation: While individual bricks may be small and lightweight, the collective weight
and structure of the wall make it heavy and difficult to lift. Assuming otherwise overlooks the
complexity of the whole system.
- Example 3: "Each player on the team is skilled, so the whole team must be unbeatable."
- Additional Note: Team dynamics and other factors can affect overall performance.
Formal Fallacies: