CHAPTER THREE

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Introduction: About Fallacies in General

As you have been informed in the discussion on the Nature of Arguments, every argument
whether it be inductive or deductive makes a claim that if the premises are assumed true, then its
conclusion would be true. But the reason for constructing an argument to prove that its
conclusion is true can fail in either of two ways. One way it can fail is by assuming a false
proposition (statement) as one of its premises-means, if the premises are not true, the argument
fails to establish the truth of its conclusion.

The other way an argument can fail to establish the truth of its conclusion is when its premises
do not imply its conclusion. So, here we are not concerned with the truth or falsehood of the
statements (premises and conclusion) but with the logical relations between them. An argument
whose premises do not imply its conclusion is one whose conclusion could be false even if all its
premises are true. And an argument that fails in this second way is said to be fallacious.

The word “fallacy” is used in various ways. One familiar use of the word is to designate any
mistaken idea or false belief. For example, we know that not all people are honest. And the
belief (or to believe) that all people are honest is a mistaken idea (a false belief), hence it is
"fallacy", because there are many people who are not honest. Thus, the word "fallacy'' is to be
understood in this way when it is considered in the broader sense.

But as far as our study of Logic is concerned, the word “fallacy”' is used in the narrower sense,
which is to mean an error committed in the process of reasoning. Still there are many kinds of
errors committed in reasoning, and not all of these errors are to be said fallacies. For example,
one may argue that "two plus two equals four (2 + 2 = 4), therefore God exists." But the fact that
2 + 2 = 4 does in no way prove the conclusion that God exists. Or, in other words, the fact that 2
+ 2 = 4 does not create any psychological delusion to accept that God exists since the conclusion
is neither logically nor psychologically implied by the premise. Errors like this are obviously
invalid. So, the above argument or reasoning process is a simple error, and not fallacy as the
conclusion does not tend to psychologically persuade us. Therefore, in our study of Logic it is
customary to reserve the term “fallacy” for arguments that may be psychologically persuasive,
although not logically. We can therefore define fallacy as a type of argument that may seem to be
correct, but that proves, upon examination, not to be so.

Informal Fallacies are frequently backed by some motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the
reader or listener. The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a conclusion and as a
result may attempt to win its acceptance by resorting to a trick. Sometimes the trick fools even
the arguer. The arguer may delude himself into thinking that he is presenting genuine evidence
when in fact he is not. So, to study fallacy is to study some of the typical ways in which arguers
deceive both themselves and others. Therefore, if we study fallacy, we are less likely to be
deceived by the fallacious arguments advanced by others. It is therefore profitable to study such
arguments, for familiarity and understanding will help us keep from being misled (deceived) by
them. To be forewarned is to be forearmed! With a good knowledge of fallacy, we can also be
familiarized to the ways by which we can simply get the acceptance of our ideas by others.
Hence the objectives of the study of fallacy can be seen from these two general perspectives.

Classification of Fallacies
Generally speaking a fallacy is an error in reasoning. And usually fallacies are classified into two
groups: formal and informal.

1) Formal Fallacies are committed when an argument that appears plausible violates a formal
rule of inference. The study of formal fallacies is more concerned with techniques. Whether an
argument commits a formal fallacy can be identified by looking into the form or structure of the
argument. The following argument, for example, commits a formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
This argument appears plausible because all the statements involved are plainly true. But
examination of the form or structure of the argument shows the fallacious nature of the
argument. To arrive at this, let us represent each of the terms with letters a, b, and c (note that
three terms are involved in the above argument and these are the terms; tiger, animal, and
mammal). So, if we represent the term tiger with letter a, animal with letter b and mammal with
letter c, the argument will have the following structure:
All a are b
All c are b
Therefore, all a are c
Diagrammatically represented, the argument has the following form:
???
All a are b – means that there is no any a to be found outside circle b
All c are b – means that there is no c to be found outside circle b
All a are c- means that there is no a to be found outside circle c
Thus, inspection of the form of the above argument shows that the conclusion does not follow
from the premises. Because as we can see from the diagrammatical representation (form) of the
argument the conclusion proves false for there is no any a which is also found in c. Thus
arguments like this whose fallacious nature can be arrived at through inspection of the form or
structure of the argument are generally called formal fallacies.

2) Informal Fallacies are errors not in the form of the argument but in the content of the
argument which, when they occur, constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting that argument. So,
to know whether an argument commits an informal fallacy requires critical examination or
analysis into the content of the argument. Our entire discussion in this chapter would be about
Informal Fallacies.

We may say that informal fallacies are committed when arguments lead or direct us to an
unjustifiable conclusion, one that is misleading. Such arguments should not persuade us.
Informal fallacies very often seem to be valid, at least in the sense that they persuasively support
their conclusions. Therefore the study of informal fallacies can be said the study of
psychologically persuasive mistakes in reasoning.
In this chapter we shall consider just twenty-two kinds of informal fallacies—the most common
and most deceptive mistakes in reasoning. All this are to be divided into five sets of informal
fallacies, which we interpret broadly enough to include almost all those distinguished more
clearly. These sets are:
 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of Weak Analogy
 Fallacies of Presumption
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

A. Fallacies of Relevance
These are arguments that involve premises which are logically irrelevant to establish the truth of
their conclusions. But the premises are often psychologically relevant to the conclusion, and this
psychological relevance is what makes the argument seem persuasive and correct, when in fact it
is not. Thus the conclusion of an argument committing one of the fallacies of relevance is
defended not by genuine reason but by a sort of emotional appeal. Because, the connection
between the premises and the conclusion of an argument committing the fallacy of relevance is
emotional, and not logical. So, the fallacies of relevance demonstrate most vividly how a
conclusion moves away from the premises that it should follow (how the conclusion can stray
from the premises).

1. The Fallacy of Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to “Stick”)

One commits the fallacy of Appeal to Force whenever he or she employs force or the threat of
force or violence to bring about the acceptance of one’s position. The threat of force can be of
physical or psychological. The premises employed in this argument are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion and they lack in reasonableness to convince us, but rather to compel us to accept the
conclusion regardless of whether we believe it to be true or prudent.
DEFINITION: An Appeal to Force fallacy occurs whenever one irrelevantly appeals to force
or threat of force to win an argument.
EXAMPLE: Conversation between children
First Boy: “Ronaldo is the best footballer in the world, because he triple won the
best footballer's award.”
 Second Boy: “Ronaldo is not the best footballer, but Rooney. Here is why: if you
do not believe that Rooney is rather the best, I will push your teeth
down your throat.”
COMMENT: The second boy has let his emotion rule his reason. The first boy
made a reasonable point, the second boy replied in an unreasonable
fashion, which in no way makes the first appear less good. The first
boy thus would have no way out but to accept (even when he does
not believe) that Rooney is the best footballer. Because if he fails to
accept this, his physical wellbeing will be threatened.
Therefore, it should be noted that fallacies can be very effective on audiences and there is no
clearer example of that effectiveness than an argument which appeals to force.

2. Appeal to Pity: Argumentum ad Misericordiam

The Appeal to Pity may be viewed as a special case of the appeal to emotion, in which the
humanity and mercy of the audience are the special emotions appealed to. This fallacy is
committed when an arguer poses a conclusion and attempts to pull heart strings or to evoke pity
from the listener or reader in an effort to get his idea accepted. Here, the pity does not have any
logical connection or relevance to the conclusion. But it is psychologically relevant for the
conclusion as the arguer can usually succeed in getting a pitying heart from his audience. The
Appeal to Pity is quite common and is frequently used by students on their instructors at exam
time.
DEFINITION: The Appeal to Pity occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion
and then attempts to evoke pityfrom the reader or listener so as to
get the conclusion accepted.
EXAMPLE: Student: " Professor, hear me once pleas. I should deserve at least a
"B" in your course. If I do not, I will be dismissed from campus.
Moreover, I am an orphan and have no any one to consol the pains
of dismissal."
COMMENT: The point made by the arguer is not rational because the fact that he
is an orphan does not logically support his getting "B". Obviously,
the premise used by the arguer does not have any logical relevance
 to the subject matter of the conclusion---the premise is logically
irrelevant. But it is psychologically relevant because, with it, the
arguer may/can get a pitying heart from his listener/reader.
Therefore, the fallacy of Appeal to Pity is often committed for the sake of getting a conclusion
accepted, where the conclusion is concerned with the question of fact rather than a matter of
sentiment (emotion). This fallacy is also encountered in courtrooms when a defense attorney may
disregard the facts of the case and seek to get the jurors decide that the accused is innocent of the
crime as he is "insane".

3. Appeal to People: Argumentum ad Populum

The Appeal to People (Appeal to Popular Sentiment) fallacy is committed when one makes an
appeal for or a reference to popular support, instead of discussing the argument on its own merit.
In this case the premises are not relevant to the conclusion and are deliberately chosen as
instruments to manipulate the beliefs of the listener/reader. The Appeal to People fallacy consists
in presenting arguments with language that is calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger,
or hate. Two approaches are involved in this argument: the direct and the indirect approaches.

The direct approach is commonly committed when an arguer delivering speech to a large group
of people appeals to the crowd's aroused emotions to get acceptance for his conclusion.
Appealing to the emotions of the people is the device of every propagandist when he/she tries to
make the audience whip up emotionally. As we all know, love of country is an honorable
emotion, and this approach of the appeal to people consists in the manipulation of one's audience
by appealing inappropriately to that love.
In the indirect approach the arguer directs his/her attention not to the crowd as a whole but to
individuals separately. The heaviest reliance on this approach in particular is to be found in
commercial advertising, where the products advertised are often associated with things that we
like: luxury, success, riches, sex, and so on. The men associated with the advertisement are also
usually beautiful/handsome, famous, clever….
DEFINITION: An Appeal to the People fallacy occurs whenever one makes an
appeal to popular sentiment in a way that is irrelevant to the issue.
EXAMPLE (to the indirect approach):
Commercial Advertisings:
 1) "Sure, this is a very fantastic gum with lovely flavor. That is why
more people in Addis Ababa chew it than any other gums."
2) "XYZ Café, no doubt, is the best in the country, that is why
distinguished persons like Teddy Afro, Chachi Taddesse … are
always here on weekends. Come and Enjoy Your Weekends at
XYZ!!!"
COMMENT: The first argument suggests that we ought to make some purchase
merely because the product in question is used by the majority of
the people in Addis Ababa. In the second argument the suggestion
is: if we passed our weekend in the same place where Teddy Afro
and Chachi are passing, then we will also be admired (or will be just
like them). Here in both arguments the mere association of
something with either the majority of the people or with some
distinguished persons is utterly irrelevant, and is aimed only at
winning our emotional approval. It is only because the individuals
want to share the excitement and fame of the crowd that they find
themselves accepting the conclusion made by the speaker (as in the
case of the direct approach) or the advertiser (as in the case of the
indirect approach), but not because the statements are really
persuasive.
4. Argument Against the Person: Argumentum ad Hominum
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and the
other then responds by directing his attention not to the very idea (the conclusion) of the
first person but against the first person himself. Or, one can commit this fallacy if he
refuses to consider his opponent's argument on its merit alone, and instead attacks his
opponent on the ground of his belief, motive, religion, character, practice and so on. This
fallacy has three major forms, because there are three ways in which the attack can be
[Link] are:-adHominumAbusive ad Hominum Circumstantial, and tu quequo (
''you too'' fallacy)

i) Argumentum ad Hominum, Abusive

This is particularly committed when the second person responds to the first person's argument by
verbally abusing the first person. The second person discredits the character of his opponent,
deny his intelligence or reasonableness, and so on. But the character of the individual is logically
irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or to the correctness or incorrectness
of that person's reasoning.
EXAMPLE: a) “Hailu's idea that there is life after death should be disregarded;
since he was regularly treated in Emmanuel Hospital-a hospital
wherein individuals having personality disorder are to be treated."
COMMENT: Whether Hailu was treated in Emmanuel or not has nothing to do
with whether his premises support his conclusion. The second
person simply directs his attention against Hailu jpsychologically.
b) "Abebe has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as heroin and cocaine. But
Abebe is just another one of those upper-crust intellectuals who do
not have any care about Ethiopia. No sensible person should listen
to his nonsensical idea."
COMMENT: Whether Abebe is upper-crust intellectual or not has nothing to do
with whether his premises support his conclusion. The second
person employs a simpler verbal attack against Abebe, but he does
not rationally challenge Abebe's idea.
ii) Argumentum ad Hominum, Circumsiantial
Here, instead of verbally abusing the first person, the respondent attempts to discredit the
opponent's argument by directly or indirectly mentioning certain circumstances that would affect
the opponent. Circumstantial argument is used to suggest that the opponent's idea should be
rejected because his judgment is dictated by his special situation rather than by reasoning or
evidence.

EXAMPLE: "Sheikh Mohamed Al Muhdin is heard saying that Midroc Ethiopia

Construction Company does not rule other construction companies
out of market. You know, Al Muhdin is the sole proprietor of
Midroc Ethiopia , and by all means he wants to defend the good
 name of that company. Therefore, we all have to disregard his
argument."
COMMENT: The respondent ignores the substance of Al Muhdin's argument and
instead attempts to discredit it by calling attention to certain
circumstances that affect the truth of Al Muhdin's idea—the
circumstance that Al Muhdin is the sole proprietor of Midroc
Ethiopia. This circumstance, however, has no bearing to the truth of
that claim.

This argument pertains to the relationship between a person's beliefs and his circumstances.
Where two people are disputing, one may ignore the question whether his own view is true or
false and seek instead to prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of that opponent's
special circumstance. So, while the circumstance of the opponent may not be the issue in an
argument, calling attention to it may be psychologically effective in persuading others. However
persuasive it may be, argument of this kind is fallacious because the circumstance is logically
irrelevant to whether his premises support the conclusion or not.

iii) Tu quequo: "You too" (or the '' you are another ") fallacy
This fallacy is most commonly attributed to those who accuse opponents of inconsistency
between beliefs and circumstances, or between teachings and practices.
EXAMPLE: Child to Parent: " Your argument that I should stop stealing candy
from the nearby shop is no good. You told me yourself just a week
ago that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid."
COMMENT: Often it is relevant to point out such inconsistencies, it is not,
however, relevant to do so if the goal is simply to score points
against one's opponent in discussion rather than determining the
truth of what has been said. Obviously whether the parent stole
candy is irrelevant to whether the parent's premises support the
conclusion that the child should not steal candy.
5. Accident
The fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is wrongly applied to a specific case
mentioned in the conclusion—a case that the rule was not originally intended to cover. The
specific case is usually accidental and the rule does not fit to it.
DEFINITION: The fallacy of Accident occurs when we presume the applicability
of a generalization to individual cases that it does not cover.
EXAMPLE: “Whoever pushes a knife into another person should be arrested. But
surgeons do precisely this when operating. Therefore, surgeons
should be arrested."
COMMENT: The rule that, " whoever pushes a knife into another person should
be arrested " is obviously misapplied in the above circumstance.
Surgeons at operation usually push knife into the body of the patient
but it does not mean that they, too, should be arrested. Because, the
rule was not originally intended to cover the professional activity of
surgeons.
6. Straw Man
This fallacy also involves two arguers. The first arguer advances an argument. The second
person comes about and; a) distorts (misrepresents) the original idea of the first arguer; he does
this for the purpose of easily attacking it, b) then demolishes (attacks) the misrepresentation (the
distorted argument) but not the original argument of the first arguer, and finally c) concludes that
the real argument of the first arguer has been demolished. What the arguer does is, he simply sets
up a straw man (the misrepresentation of the opponent's real argument) and knocked it down. By
so doing, the arguer concludes that the real man's argument has also been knocked down as well.

EXAMPLE: “Senator Maria says she is against tightening the immigration laws.
Clearly she does not mind the idea of having the country overrun by
illegal aliens, who soak up resources and pay nothing in taxes."

COMMENT: Here, Maria's idea has only been against tightening immigration
laws—an idea which may call for moderate immigration laws. But,
to simply attack it, the arguer misrepresents the idea of Maria by
equating it with the idea of not having any concern to one's own
 country. So, what the arguer attacks is not the idea of Maria that
calls for moderate immigration laws, but the misrepresentation that
the arguer himself sets up. And Maria's argument has nothing to do
with having no concern to one's own country. The second arguer
thus commits the Straw Man fallacy.

7. Missing the Point: Ignoratio Elenchi

The fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi (literally, mistaken proof) is committed when an argument
claiming to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different conclusion.
Or, in other words while the premises logically imply a certain conclusion, the arguer infers a
point not related to the correct conclusion.
DEFINITION: This fallacy occurs whenever the arguer ignores the point that
must have been inferred for it is what the premises logically imply,
and instead infers a conclusion that is not logically implied by the
premises.
EXAMPLE: "For the last several years students who took the course
"Introduction to Logic" have performed very poorly as the vast
majority of them scored unsatisfactory grades. Therefore, the
department of Philosophy has to be closed down as immediately as
possible."
COMMENT: Possibly we can infer at least four conclusions that can logically
follow from the premise. The first that can be inferred is “students
should be continuously assessed, so that they may perform very
well. "Second," reading materials should be given to students, so
that they may not fail." Third, " the instructors giving the course
have to have long time teaching
experience and should be knowledgeable of the subject matter of
Logic, so that students will not fail." Fourth, "the reading materials
suggested to the students should be written in simple and
understandable language, so that students can understand it and may
pass exam."
 These are but only some of the many possible conclusions that can
be implied by the premise. Instead of inferring a conclusion which
is more like one of the above possible conclusions, the arguer
devastatingly concludes when he says "the department of
philosophy has to be closed down immediately," and this is not a
point correctly implied by the premise. Hence, the arguer misses the
very point that must have been inferred and for that matter the
fallacy committed in the above argument is to be called Missing the
Point.

8. Red Herring: Fallacy of Diversion

The Red Herring fallacy occurs whenever one allows an argument to be shifted from the issue in
an attempt by the opponent to confuse the issue. Committing this fallacy consists in the
following steps:
a) First the arguer changes the original subject (issue).
b) by so doing, he then diverts the attention of his listener or reader as the original subject
is changed, which means the arguer leads his listener/reader off the right track, and
c) Finally, he infers a conclusion about this different issue.
DEFINITION: The fallacy of Diversion (red herring) occurs when one confuses
the obvious conclusion of an argument by changing the subject
and without the listener/reader noticing it.
EXAMPLE: Your friend Bethelheim says that ''Wushwush Tea'' tastes better than
''Good-morning Tea''. But she is ignoring the the fact that
Wushwush Tea is made by a sister company of Midroc-Ethiopia-the
company that harshly kicks a number of companies out of market.
And this company is directly responsible for the ever increasing rate
of joblessness in Ethiopia. Because the company's intake capacity of
human labor is very minimum for it is highly technological and does
not require human labor. Obviously your friend Bethelheim is
mistaken.''
 COMMENT: Bethelheim has made a reasonable argument to which the arguer
can make no reasonable reply. The first subject has been whether
Wushwush Tea tastes better. But the arguer changes this subject into
totally different issues—the issues of market and joblessness, which
are totally unrelated to the original subject. The arguer does so
hoping his listener/reader will forget the point. So, if we are aware
that the original subject is subtly changed or diverted into a different
topic, we have to explain to the person that what he is talking about
is not our viewpoint, because we are responsible on keeping the
argument on course. Diversion is a special type of fallacy of
relevance.

Questions
Name the Fallacy!
__________1 "I certainly deserve a raise in pay. I can hardly manage to help my parents on what
you have been paying me. And my younger, Abebe, needs an operation if he is ever to walk
without crutches."
__________2 “All men have the right to preach their religious view. Therefore, a judge is
justified in using the courtroom to express his own religious view."
__________3 “You told me that I should not be smoking. But your argument is unacceptable
you too smoke."
___________4 “Yes, you should believe it. If you do not, I will rearrange your face."
___________5 “You should read Sebhat Gebregziabhere's latest novel right away. It is sold over
a million copies, and practically everyone in Addis Ababa University is talking about it.'
__________6 " Sibhat Gebregziabhere's argument against censorship of pornographic literature
should be discounted, because Sibhat is irreligious, drunkard, irresponsible and has no any
concern to the culture, norm, and ethical standards of the Ethiopian society ."

3.3. Fallacies of Weak Induction

The fallacies of Weak Induction are those which usually occur in inductive arguments. The
presence of an inductive fallacy may indicate a shortage of evidence needed to warrant the
likelihood of the conclusion, or (as is sometimes the case) lots of evidence is offered in the
argument, but it is not the right kind of evidence. So, unlike the fallacies of relevance, inductive
fallacies occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but because
the inferential relation between the premises and the conclusion is not strong enough to support
the truth of the conclusion.

Before you study the inductive fallacies, you might do well to recall the distinction between
inductive and deductive arguments. An inductive argument is an argument which offers evidence
in support of its conclusion and which claims a degree of likelihood or probability for its
conclusion; a deductive argument is one which claims that its conclusion must follow from its
premises. Review “Deductive and Inductive Arguments” in Unit One.
9. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
It is likely that most of our opinions are formed on the basis of reports we have received from
others, directly or indirectly, by word of mouth or from writing. Some times we are legitimately
influenced to accept an opinion as true on the basis of another’s report. Therefore, not all appeals
to authority are fallacious appeals, since it may well be the case that an authority in the filed
under discussion may have something especially worthwhile, to say about the truth of the
argument under discussion. The fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority occurs when we cite
an authority that is not trustworthy (or when the authority appealed to is clearly speaking outside
the area of his expertise), or he might be biased and so on.

DEFINITION: An Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when the authority cited is not
legitimate, or when the arguer fails to note legitimate
disagreements between legitmate authorities on an issue, or when
one makes an appeal to authority to support his/her case without
considering the reasons the authority presents in favor of the matter.
EXAMPLE: Believe it! I personally heard the great scientist Kiteaw Ejigu say that
the job market for engineers is worse than it has ever been .
COMMENT: While Kitaw is a great scientist, he may not know much about
markets. Such sayings (Pronouncements) are intimidating because
Kitaw is greatly respected in his field but without hearing his reasons,
 we cannot say whether or not he has made an accurate appraisal of the
conditions in engineering job market.
10. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
An Appeal to Ignorance is committed if and when one argues that the absence of
evidence for a conclusion counts as reason to believe the truth of the conclusion.
The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something
that has not yet been proved. The fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance involves one of the
following:
either a) the claim that a statement is true (or may be reasonably
true) simply because it has not been proven false or b) the claim
that a statement is false (or may be reasonably believed false)
simply because it has not been proven true.
DEFINITION: An Appeal to Ignorance fallacy occurs whenever one uses
an absence of evidence for a claim as though it were
evidence for the claim.
EXAMPLE-1: After centuries of trying, no one has been able to prove that
God exists. So at this point, I think we can safely conclude
that God does not exist.
EXAMPLE -2: After centuries of trying, no one has been able to show that
God does not exist. Therefore, God exists.
COMMENT: The premises of the above arguments tell us nothing about the
existence of God. Therefore, rather than concluding that God
exists or does not exist based on the mere ground that no one has
proven or disproven it,the best way we have is simply to
suspend our judgment about things which are incapable of being
proved. If we judge either way, our judgment would be
fallacious.

11. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

The fallacy of Hasty Generalization is committed whenever one generalizes to a conclusion, on
the basis of scanty evidence, a sample that is obviously too small to support the generalization.
Thus the argument proceeds from the knowledge of a sample of something to the whole group of
that thing and there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is too small to represent the group
as a whole.

DEFINITION: A fallacy of Hasty Generalization occurs whenever one collects a

sample of relevant evidence in support of a conclusion but the sample
is just too small or unrepresentative to support the conclusion
EXAMPLE: Fourth year philosophy students are 75 in number. Blood is taken out of
3 students, and upon examination all 3 students are found to have
their blood type “B”. Therefore, on the basis of this, I conclude that
the rest of the students will also have the same blood type, that is
“B”.
COMMENT: 3 Students are too small to represent all 75 students at large to justify
the conclusion.

The fallacy of Hasty Generalization is otherwise called as “Converse Accident” or it is the

opposite of the fallacy of Accident because a Hasty Generalization proceeds in a direction
opposite from that of Accident. While Accident proceeds form the general to the particular (the
premises deal with a general issue, but the conclusion deals with something particular), Hasty
Generalization proceeds from the particular to the general (the premises deal with a particular
issue, but the conclusion generalizes that something is true or false merely based on the
knowledge of the particular issue-the sample).

12. False Cause

The fallacy of False Cause occurs whenever the link between the premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Or, it occurs when
one hastily characteristics one event or set of circumstances as the cause of another event or set
of circumstances.
There are three varieties of False Cause fallacy:

a) Post hoc ergo Propter hoc, which means (“after the thing, therefore, because of the thing”).
This variety assumes mere temporal succession between two events as the basic evidence to
judge that the first event causes the second event. For example, events X and Y occur at different
times that event X occurs prior to event Y, and if X is taken to be the cause of event Y when the
two events do not have any real connection, then the argument would be fallacious.
EXAMPLE: Every time drums have been beaten during an eclipse, the sun has
reappeared!
CPMMENT: The mere fact of coincidence or temporal succession does not
establish any causal connection. Certainly we should reject the
premature claim that beating drums is the cause of the sun’s
reappearance after an eclipse.
b) non causa Pro causa, which means (“not the cause for the cause”). This variety of the False
Cause fallacy is committed when one mistakes what is not the cause of a given effect for its real
cause (or when one mistakes the cause for the effect).
EXAMPLE: There are more Churches in Ethiopia today than ever before, and more
HIV Victims than ever before; so, to eliminate the pandemic we must
abolish the churches.
COMMENT: The increase in Churches is only coincidental with the increase in the
HIV pandemic. And obviously the mere fact that one event is
coincidental with another is not sufficient reason to think that one
caused the other.

C) Oversimplified Cause

This variety of False Cause fallacy is committed when one singles out a cause from many
possible causes of an event and considers as if it were the exclusive cause of an event and
considers as if it were the exclusive cause of the event.
EXAMPLE: “Why most students fail in Logic is because teachers do not come to
class regularly.”
COMMENT: Why students fail can be caused by many factors, such as shortage of
reading materials, lack of interest in Logic by the students themselves
and so on. These all together may cause the students fail in Logic, and
teachers not coming to class regularly may not be the sole cause; but
only one of the many possible causes. The above argument
 oversimplifies as if the fact of teachers not coming class regularly
were the exclusive cause for why students fail in logic.
13. Slippery Slope
A fallacy of Slippery Slope is committed when one affirms an unjustifiable “Chain reaction” of
causes which, if it is allowed to continue leads inevitably to disaster. The argument attempts to
persuade the listener or reader that a silly and an innocent mistake will inevitably lead to a
disaster through chain of reactions.

DEFINITION: The fallacy of Slippery Slope occurs whenever one unjustifiably

concludes a “dire consequence” will be the result of an
unconnected or loosely connected series of events.
EXAMPLE: Dancing is the work of the devil! If we let young people listen and
dance to rock music, I tell you that sooner or later they will turn
against their parents, they will take to fornication and
pornography, and they will grow up to be prostitutes. No good can
come from dancing, so I have cancelled all future dances.
COMMENT: The arguer has confused the issue. Rock music and dancing can be
a healthy and normal way of expressing feelings, ideas, energies of
young people (and may be older people too). Perhaps the argues
has observed that dancing to rock music is a way of expressing
sexual energy and has falsely concluded that it must lead down the
road to illegal and bad sexuality (among other things). But if we
critically look into the argument, we can say that the occurrence of
the chain of reactions leading up to the ultimate disaster rests on a
mere emotional belief on the part of the arguer that dancing is
bad.
14. Weak Analogy
Argument from Analogy is an inductive argument in which the conclusion depends on the
existence of an analogy, or similarity between two things. And the fallacy is committed when the
analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion. So, all inductive arguments from
Analogy are risky from a logical point of view.
DEFINITION: A fallacy of Weak Analogy occurs whenever one infers a conclusion
on the basis of a questionable comparison or without offering
sufficient evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
EXAMPLE: “My instructor’s car is white in color, is made in Germany, and has a
speed of 180km/h. My sister’s new car is white in color and it is also
made in Germany. Therefore, it must be that my sister’s new car also
has a speed of 180 km/h.
COMMENT: This is a questionable comparison. The fact that the two cars are
similar in color and place from which they are made does not
necessarily mean that the two cars turn out to be identical. Because
the Law of Identity states that two objects are identical only when they
have all their properties in common.
'

Questions
Name that Fallacy!
_______ 1. “Of course it is reasonable to believe that there is life after death. After all, plenty of
scientists have tried but non has been able to disprove the fact of life after
death.”
_______ 2. “A black cat crossed my path and later I broke my leg. It must be that black cats
really are bad luck.”
_______ 3. “I know two (2) members of the Ethiopian National Football Team are drunkards.
This implies that all the members of the team are also drunkards.”
_______ 4. “Entity X has attributes a, b, c, and d.
Entity Y has attributes a, b, c. Therefore, entity Y has attribute d also.”
_______ 5. “Dr. Abebe, who is a famous biochemist, told me last night that the economic policy
Ethiopia adopts is wrong. In view of Dr. Abebe’s profession, we may say that
indeed Ethiopia is following a wrong direction of economic policy.''
3.4. Fallacies of Presumption
The fallacies of presumption include, Begging the Question, Complex Question, False
Dichotomy, and Suppressed Evidence. These fallacies occur not because the premises are
irrelevant to the conclusion (unlike fallacies of relevance), and not because the premises provide
insufficient reason for believing the conclusion, but because they presume what they claim to
prove. So, a fallacy of presumption draws a conclusion on the basis of a faulty assumption made
in advance of reason.

15. Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning (Petitio Principii)

In attempting to establish the truth of a statement, we often look for acceptable premises from
which the statement in question can be inferred as conclusion. If one assumes as a premise for an
argument the very conclusion it is intended to prove, the fallacy committed is that of Begging the
Question, or Circular Reasoning. So, the fallacy of Begging the Question is committed if and
only if the arguer, in the course of his argument, assumes the very thing he is trying to prove.
Thus, the conclusion that the speaker is arguing to gets assumed among the premises, for the
conclusion.

So far the arguments we investigated into have been with premises claiming to prove the truth of
the conclusion. But in an argument that commits the fallacy of Begging the Question, it is the
conclusion (with the other premises) that claims to prove the questionable character of a key
premise that is why the fallacy is otherwise called as the fallacy of Circular Reasoning.
DEFINITION: One commits the fallacy of Begging the Question whenever in the
course of argument one assumes the very thing he is trying to
prove.
EXAMPLE: “Of course abortion is permissible and up to the woman.
After all, a woman has a right to do as she pleases with her own body”
COMMENT: To say that abortion is permissible and up to the woman sounds the
same sense as to say that a woman has a right to do as she pleases.
So, the premise and conclusion mean the something, and it is
obvious that if the premise is true, the conclusion is also true.
16. Complex Question
One commits the fallacy of Complex Question when and if one asks two or more questions in a
way that makes it appear that only one question has been asked. When we forward a question to
someone we make presuppositions of answers within it. Asking questions to a respondent to
answer it genuinely without being confused and tricked is not wrong. However, when the
question is complex and aimed only at trapping the respondent to acknowledge something that
he/she is not willing to, it becomes wrong.

A complex question is not an argument as such, but involves an implicit argument and this
becomes explicit when response is added to the complex question. Most complex questions are
familiar devices to lawyers and judges when examining defendants to admit crimes. To see how
a complex question can prejudge an issue in the form of a question, look into the following
example:
Prosecuting attorney: “Have you given up your criminal way?”

Here, what the defendant can answer is either “Yes” or “No,” there is no other way out, and if he
answers ‘Yes”, so it means he has previously been involved in crimes (so he is guilty). And if he
answers “No” it means he has continued in criminal ways, and is guilty. Therefore, he would be
trapped in either case. Depending on the answer given by the defendant the prosecuting attorney
may therefore establish arguments like:
a) You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways. You answered
“yes”. It follows that, you have previously been a criminal.”
b) “You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways. You answered
“no”. It follows that, you have continued involving in crimes.”
COMMENT: Both arguments the prosecuting attorney may establish are fallacious
precisely because no information is really being sought. The questions
is actually formulating a hidden argument in the complex question.

17. False Dichotomy

The fallacy of False Dichotomy can be otherwise called as “false bifurcation,” “either… or
fallacy “, or “false dilemma.” And this fallacy is committed when the arguer insists that only two
alternatives are possible in a given situation (when in fact the alternatives presented are not
exhaustive-because more alternatives are still possible). In other words, the fallacy of False
Dichotomy occurs whenever one is faced with a very limited numbers of alternatives, and when
one attempts to bring a premature end to a debate by declaring a dilemma when none exists.
Other alternatives may be possible, or other courses of action can be persuade.
DEFINTION: One commits the fallacy of False Dilemma when posing a restrictive set
of undesirable alternatives when other legitimate alternatives may be
possible
EXAMPLE: Child to Parent: “Either you buy me a new coat, or I will freeze to death
when winter comes.”
COMMENT: Here the child presents two alternatives and insists that if his parents fail
to buy him,… he will die But we know that this is very far from being
true because the child has many other alternatives by which he may be
protected from winter, cold. For instance, if his parents buy him a
blanket, “gabi”, or whatever, he will sustain the winter cold and may
not freeze to death. But the child rules out all these possible alternatives
as if the presented alternatives were complete.

The fallacious nature of False Dichotomy lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or
listener into thinking that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives, and is
therefore true by necessity.

18. Suppressed Evidence

This is an inductive argument that overlooks an important piece of evidence (premise) that if it
were considered, the conclusion to be drawn would be very different form the one drawn. In
other words, this fallacy is committed when the argument ignores some important evidence/s that
outweighs the presented evidence and entails a different conclusion. The evidence that is
suppressed must be so important that it outweighs the presented evidence, and it must require a
different conclusion than the one drawn. Usually the suppression is intentional as the arguer
deliberately omits the key evidence (premise) and instead emphasizes a certain point in order to
hide the relevant premise that would entail totally different point.

EXAMPLE: Addis Ababa University deserves to be accepted as one of the best

universities in Africa, because it has got impressive buildings, a classically
beautiful gate, and an especially attractive fountain.”
COMMENT: The key evidences (premises) omitted in this argument-evidences that must
have been considered- are the organizational and administrative qualities of
the university, the facilities available for both research and teaching-
learning processes, and the overall environment that is conducive for
intellectual development. All these being overlooked, the conclusion drawn
is that, “Addis Ababa University deserves to be accepted as one of the
best…” But if the arguer did not suppress or if he considered all the above
evidences, the conclusion to be drawn would be a very different one; may
be that, “Addis Ababa University is not one among the best African
universities.”

3.5. Fallacies of Ambiguity

These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the
conclusion (or both). The fallacies of Ambiguity include Equivocation and Amphiboly.

19. Equivocation
The fallacy of Equivocation occurs whenever the meaning of a word (or phrase) is shifted in the
course of an argument to take on a new meaning, thereby creating the false impression that the
reason for the conclusion is really a good reason, when it is semantically irrelevant. Or, in other
words, the fallacy of equivocation is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on
the fact that one or more words are used in two different senses in the argument (or when a word
is ambiguous as it may be interpreted in different senses).

DEFINITION: A fallacy of Equivocation occurs whenever one employs a term which

has more than one meaning and then, in the course of an argument,
shifts meanings to reach a mistaken conclusion.
EXAMPLE: We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defense
of the innocent. Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defense of the
innocent.
COMMENT: This argument uses the word “right” in two different senses. In the first
premise “right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a just
 claim or power (something related to political right). Thus two distinct
meanings of the word “right” are used in a context in which validity
requires a single meaning of the word.

20. Amphiboly
“Amphibole” is an ambiguous sentence-a sentence which can be construed to give two or more
distinct senses or interpretations. The fallacy is committed when one of these separate meanings
is shifted to lend false support to the conclusion, even when really it is irrelevant. One may find
it easier to keep Equivocation and meanings in words or phrases, whereas Amphibology
involves shifts of meaning in while sentences.

Another way of looking at the distinction between Equivocation and Amphiboly would be to
describe “Equivocation” as “Fallacies of term ambiguity” and “Amphiboly” ‘Fallacies of
grammar ambiguity.” The fallacy of Amphiboly in this sense occurs in the misuse of a sentence
which employs a grammatical construction with two meanings in the course of an argument, one
meaning which appears to lend support to a conclusion, and another, usually the intended
meaning, which dos not.
DEFINTION: A fallacy of Amphiboly occurs when a sentence which contains two
or more distinct interpretations in such a way n the course of an
argument that an erroneous or irrelevant conclusion is obtained.
EXAMPLE: Abebe told Kebede that he had made a mistake. It follows that, Abebe
has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
COMMENT: In this argument, the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it
can refer either Abebe or Kebede. Perhaps Abebe told Kebede that
Kebede had made a mistake.

2.6. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

The fallacies of Grammatical Analogy include Composition and Division. Arguments that
commit these fallacies are grammatically similar to other arguments that are good in every
respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may appear
good yet be bad.
21. Composition

The fallacy of composition is committed on the condition that what is asserted of every part is
assumed to hold true for the whole as well. It is clear that the individual parts of a thing may
usually contain properties which the composite whole does not. In other words, the fallacy
occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole
has that property too and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately
transferred from parts to whole.

DEFINITION: A fallacy of composition occurs whenever one argues that the

properties of each member of a class must hold true for the
members of the class taken as a whole. (This is a fallacy of
generalization going from “each part” to the “whole”.)
EXAMPLE: Every atom in this piece of chalk is invisible, therefore, the piece of
chalk is invisible.
COMMENT: The attribute of being invisible is transferred illegitimately to the
whole, and the argument is fallacious.

Caution is required by the fact that the fallacy of Compotation is sometimes confused with that
of Hasty Generalization. And the difference between the two is that while Composition proceeds
from the members to the class itself in Hasty Generalization, on the other hand, proceeds from
the specific to the general.

22. Division
The fallacy of Division occurs whenever the properties of the whole are assumed to hold true for
each of its parts. As such it is the reverse of the fallacy of composition.
DEFINITION: A fallacy of Division occurs whenever the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute
from the whole class to the members of the class taken
individually. (This is a fallacy of “instantiation” going from “the
whole” to “each part.”)
EXAMPLE: The Royal Society is over three hundred years old. Professor Alemie
is over three hundred years old.
COMMENT: The attribute designated that is “over three hundred years old,” is
illegitimately transferred from the whole class on to the individual
member.

Just as with composition is sometimes prone to being confused with Hasty Generalization
(converse Accident), Division is sometimes prone to being confused with Accident. And the
difference between the two is that while Division proceeds from the class to the members,
Accident proceeds form the general to the specific.

Questions
Name that Fallacy!
________ 1. “A doctor is a human being. So, a good doctor is a good human being.”
________ 2. “Time is composed of moments. Moments have no duration. Therefore, time has no
duration.”
________3. “Each and every cell in this carrot is 90 percent water. Therefore, the entire carrot is
90 percent water.”
________ 4. “Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some
triangles are ignorant.”
Summary of Informal Fallacies
Fallacies of relevance`
Appeal to Force: Arguer threatens reader/listener
Appeal to Pity: Arguer evokes pity from reader/ listener.
Appeal to the People (direct): Arguer arouses mob mentality.
Appeal to the People (indirect): Arguer appeals to reader/listener's desire for
love, respect, fame etc.
Argument against the person (abusive): Arguer verbally abuses other
Argument against the person (circumstantial): Arguer presents other arguer
presents other arguer as influenced to argue this way.
Argument against the person (tu quequo): Arguer presents other arguer
as hypocrite.
Accident: General rule is wrongly applied to a specific case.
 Straw man: Arguer distorts opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted
argument.
Missing the Point: Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by
premises.
Red herring: Arguer leads reader/listener off track.
Fallacies of Weak Induction
Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites untrustworthy authority.
Appeal to ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved, and then
conclusion is drawn.
Hasty Generalization: Conclusion is drawn from a typical sample.
False cause: Conclusion depends on nonexistence or minor causal connection.
Slippery slope: Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
Weak analogy: Conclusion depends on defective analogy.
Fallacies of Presumption
Begging the question: Questionably true premise is concealed.
Complex question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single question.
False Dichotomy: "Either…or…" statement hides additional alternatives.
Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores evidence that outweighs given evidence
and requires different conclusion.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: Conclusion depends on multiple use of them.
Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on ambiguous statement.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
Composition: Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.
Division: Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts

Review Questions
Identify the correct alternatives (the even questions are answered in the back of the
module)
1. Which of the following is false about Informal Fallacies?
A. exposing an informal fallacy requires an examination of the content of the argument.
B. they can be identified through mere inspection of the form/structure of the argument.
C. every simple mistake committed in the process of reasoning is taken as fallacy.
D. A and C.
E. B and C.
2. The whole set of fallacies committed when the premises assume the very point they claim to
prove is:
A. fallacies of relevance B. fallacies of presumption C. fallacies of ambiguity
D. fallacies of weak induction E. fallacies of grammatical analogy
3. When one singles out a cause from the many possible causes of an event and considers as if it
were the exclusive cause of the event, then the particular false cause fallacy that is to
arise, is:
A. non causa pro causa B. post hoc ergo propter hoc
C. oversimplified cause D. slippery slope
4. When one takes the mere existence of temporal succession between two things as causal
connection, he commits a fallacy called:
A. non causa pro hoc B. oversimplified cause
C. post hoc ergo propter cause D. weak analogy
5. If a teacher concludes that all students in his class are intelligent based on his observation that
five out of hundred students were found to be intelligent, then he commits:
A. the fallacy of composition B. the fallacy of hasty generalization
C. the fallacy of division D. the fallacy of accident
6 When one argues that what is true as a general rule must hold true in some specific situations,
he then commits:
A. hasty generalization B. accident
C. division D. composition E. none
7. One of the following fallacies is committed because it unjustifiably reduces the number of
alternatives to be considered.
A. false dichotomy B. suppressed evidence
C. missing the point D. weak analogy
8. " Your honor, my client does not deserve a year in prison. He has small children who need a
father, and a wife that needs a husband." In this argument the arguer cites the children and the
wife of his client in an attempt to:
A. provide evidence in support of the conclusion
B. evoke pity from the judge
C. make his point clear to the judge
D. substantiate the evidence of his argument

9. If a person argues because two or more things are similar in some respects, they are also
similar in other respects, and then the fallacy he commits is:
A. accident B. hasty generalization
C. weak analogy D. equivocation

10. The fallacy in which the arguer tries to convince the listener or reader by resorting to a threat
of violence is:
A. appeal to pity B. appeal to force
C. appeal to authority C. straw man

11. " Sibhat G/Egziabher's book is not worth the ink spilled to print it. After all, we know that he
is an immoral atheist (irreligious) who wants to destroy our cherished values." The fallacy
committed is:
A. ad hominum abusive B. ad hominum circumstantial
C. tu quoque ( you too) D. appeal to force
12. "Dr. Alemneh who is an associate professor in the department of Biology has stated that both
gravity and electricity decrease in strength with the square of distance. Therefore, based on
Dr. Alemneh's profession as professor of biology, we must conclude that his statement is
indeed true." This passage commits:
A. no fallacy B. appeal to ignorance
C. fallacy of unqualified authority D. ignoratio elenchi E. C and D
13. "All of us cannot be famous, because all of us cannot be well known." This argument
commits the fallacy of:
 A. begging the question B. circular reasoning
C. complex question D. A and B E. B and C
14. " Kassaye told me that he always quarrels with his father when he is drunk. Therefore
Kassaye's father is quarrelsome whenever he drinks." This argument commits a fallacy
called:
A. amphiboly B. equivocation
C. red herring D. appeal to people
15. Which of the following fallacies may be regarded as the fallacy of diversion
A. straw man B. missing the point
C. slippery slope D. red herring
16. If one argues that a proposition is true because all or most people believe it to be true, he
commits the fallacy called:
A. appeal to ignorance B. appeal to people
C. appeal to unqualified authority D. appeal to pity
17. The fallacies which are usually committed in inductive arguments are generally called:
A. fallacies of weak induction B. fallacies of relevance
C. fallacies of ambiguity D. fallacies of presumption
E. fallacies of grammatical analogy
18. A fallacy that may not reflect the argument of two persons from the following is:
A. appeal to pity B. appeal to force
C. straw man D. hasty generalization
19. " Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate. The conclusion is
obvious: we have to kill everyone who involves in these crimes." The argument commits
the fallacy of:
A. missing the point B. argumentum ad hominum
C. argumentum ad populum D. appeal to force
20. " This book argues that realizing privatization of state controlled enterprises is in the best
interest of the country. The author of the book is a wealthy entrepreneur who stands to
benefit directly from such a policy. Therefore, readers are advised to disregard what the
book claims." This passage commits:
A. no fallacy B. ad hominum abusive
C. ad hominum circumstantial D. amphiboly