Fallacies

Fallacies
A fallacy is a defect in an argument

that consists in something other than
merely false premises.
An error in reasoning.
It is a mistake in reasoning that creates
an illusion.
No single theory can account for all
fallacies.
TYPES OF FALLACIES
1. FORMAL FALLACIES – committed in
the structure of an argument.
2. INFORMAL FALLACIES – identifiable by

looking at the contents of an
argument.
INFORMAL FALLACIES are more common
and we commit them daily.
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE occur where the

premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion. The connection between
premises and conclusion is emotional. It is
key to distinguish genuine evidence from
various forms of emotional appeal.
FALLACY OF APPEAL TO FORCE
‘ARGUMENTUM AS BACULUM’ :
Coercion; harm is intended in
the conclusion
(Similar to the carrot and
stick method)
APPEAL TO PITY
Use of emotions, sentiments,
taking recourse to emotionalism
an arguer attempts to support a

conclusion by merely evoking pity.
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
‘ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM’ :
Bandwagon, appeal to numbers
a) Direct approach –
b)Indirect approach – while addressing a

person you appeal to a larger group
that person may be affiliated.
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON
‘ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM’ -
dismissive on the basis of arguer not argument.
a) AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE – Character assassination.
b) AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL – Begins with

abuse but respondent discredits opponent’s
argument by alluding to certain circumstances that
affect the opponent.
ACCIDENT FALLACY
when a general rule is applied to a
specific case it was not intended to
cover.
Typically, the general rule is cited

(directly or implicitly)in the premises
and then wrongly applied to the specific
case mentioned in the conclusion.
MISSING THE POINT FALLACY
‘IGNORATIO ELENCHI’ – ignorance of truth.
When the premise only supports a certain

conclusion, but then another conclusion,
vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is
drawn.
There is no immediate connection.

RED HERRING FALLACY –
“led astray”
when arguer diverts the attention of the reader
or listener by changing the subject to a different
but sometimes subtly related one.
He/she then finishes by drawing a conclusion

not related.
They then claim to have won the argument.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
‘ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM’ –
When the premises of an argument state

that nothing has been proved one way or
the other about something, and the
conclusion then makes a definite assertion
about the thing.
Issue involves things incapable of being
proved or yet to be proved.
APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM –
An authority who lacks

competence in subject but
employs status or office to seek
credibility.
FALSE CAUSE
when link between premise
and conclusion depends on
some imagined casual link
between the two.
The effect is made the cause.

WEAK ANALOGY FALLACY
when an analogy is
not strong enough to
support a conclusion.
FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY
Arises from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the
premises or conclusion (or both).
When the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in

meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase.
a) EQUIVOCATION – when a word carries two different senses in an

argument. Such arguments are either invalid or have a sound
standing.
b) AMPHIBOLY – occurs when arguer misinterprets an ambiguous

statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty
interpretation. It can be a mistake in grammar, punctuation,
careless arrangement of words. Some can do it consciously.
FALLACY OF COMPOSITION
When the conclusion depends on
the erroneous transference of an
attribute from the parts of
something onto the whole.
Because parts have an attribute,

the whole is assumed to be similar.
FALLACY OF DIVISION
Opposite of fallacy of composition.
Taking attributes of a whole group and

imposing them on an individual.
Erroneous transference of an attribute

of the whole (or a class) onto its parts
(or members).
Argument by Prestigious Jargon
 Using big complicated words so
that you will seem to be an
expert.
Why do people use "utilize"

when they could utilize "use" ?
Argument by Gibberish: ‘Bafflement’
 This is the extreme version of ‘argument by
prestigious jargon’
 Whilst an invented jargon helps the effect, even

perfectly ordinary words can be used to baffle
 Gibberish may come from people who can’t find

meaning in technical jargon, so they think they should
copy style instead of meaning
 Similar to argument by poetic language

Argument by Slogan
 If its short, and connects to an argument, it
must be an argument (but Slogans risk the
Reductive Fallacy)
 It also helps Argument by Emotive Language

(Appeal to the People) since Emotional appeals
need to be punchy
 Using an old slogan is ‘cliche thinking’

Non Sequitur Fallacy
Something that just does not follow
eg: "Tens of thousands of Americans have

seen lights in the night sky which they could
not identify. The existence of life on other
planets is fast becoming certainty !"
Extrapolation – drawing a conclusion based

on a very limited piece of evidence
Inconsistency
 An argument fraught with internal
contradictions
 eg: the declining life expectancy in the

former Soviet Union is due to the failures
of communism. But, the quite high infant
mortality rate in the United States is not a
failure of capitalism.
Argument by Generalization
 Drawing a broad conclusion from a small
number of perhaps unrepresentative cases
 The cases may be unrepresentative because of

Selective Observation
 For example, "They say 1 out of every 5 people

is Chinese. How is this possible ? I know
hundreds of people, and none of them is
Chinese.“

Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fallacies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fallacies

A fallacy is a defect in an argument

2. INFORMAL FALLACIES – identifiable by

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE occur where the

an arguer attempts to support a

b)Indirect approach – while addressing a

a) AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE – Character assassination.

b) AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL – Begins with

Typically, the general rule is cited

‘IGNORATIO ELENCHI’ – ignorance of truth.

When the premise only supports a certain

There is no immediate connection.

He/she then finishes by drawing a conclusion

They then claim to have won the argument.

When the premises of an argument state

An authority who lacks

The effect is made the cause.

When the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in

a) EQUIVOCATION – when a word carries two different senses in an

b) AMPHIBOLY – occurs when arguer misinterprets an ambiguous

Because parts have an attribute,

Taking attributes of a whole group and

Erroneous transference of an attribute

Why do people use "utilize"

 Whilst an invented jargon helps the effect, even

 Gibberish may come from people who can’t find

 Similar to argument by poetic language

 It also helps Argument by Emotive Language

 Using an old slogan is ‘cliche thinking’

eg: "Tens of thousands of Americans have

Extrapolation – drawing a conclusion based

 eg: the declining life expectancy in the

 The cases may be unrepresentative because of

 For example, "They say 1 out of every 5 people

You might also like