TOPIC SEVEN
7.0 FALLACIES
7.1 Introduction
This lecture is a discussion of mistakes in reasoning technically known as fallacies. While there are
formal and informal fallacies, [Link] lecture will be limited to discussion of informal fallacies
7.2 Lecture objectives
By the end of this lecture, the learner should be able to:
7.2.1. Explain the meaning of the term ‘fallacy, and classify fallacies into their various categories
7.2.2 Identify and make efforts to avoid fallacies of relevance
7.2.3 Identify and make efforts to avoid fallacies of insufficient data/induction
Content
7.2.1 meaning and classification of fallacies
[Link]. Meaning of the term fallacy
Fallacy: derived from Latin word ‘felere’which means to deceive. Fallacy can thus be defined as argument
that may seem to be correct but which, upon examination, proves not to be so. It is a mistake in reasoning.
In other words, fallacies are bad arguments that masquerade as good ones; they are counterfeits of good
arguments. Common mistakes in reasoning resulting from failure by premises to establish the conclusion
Fallacious arguments are deceptive because they often superficially appear to be good arguments by
appealing to our emotions, prejudice, self-interest or blind faith and psychologically persuasive.
- Fallacies are not mere conceptual problems they have far-reaching implications as they may:
❖ Misrepresent
❖ Prejudice leading to animosity
❖ Used for sloganeering and propaganda to cloud our minds and divert us from the real issues.
[Link] Classification of Fallacies
- One important contribution of logic has been identification, classification, and analysis of fallacies
-Broadly speaking, fallacies can be divided into two major categories – Formal and Informalfallacies.
A. Formal fallacies - also known as logical fallacies.
- These mistakes arise through the violation of the logical rules, which govern correct arguments.
- They occur when we misapply a valid rule of inference as they contravene the formal structure of a valid
argument.
- They are invalid deductive arguments resulting from bad deductive reasoning.
- They can, therefore, be identified by a mere inspection of the argument form.
-formal fallacies are conveniently discussed in connection with certain patterns of arguments
B. Informal fallacies
- Unlike the formal fallacies, the informal mistakes do not relate to the form of the argument in which they
occur.
- They are identified through an analysis of the content of an argument.
-Generally, informal fallacies correspond to the standards of reasoning or thinking violated.
- Informal fallacies are subdivided into four broad categories: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of insufficient
evidence (inductive fallacies), fallacies of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity
7.2.2 Fallacies of relevance
The concept of relevance
-A statement is relevant to another if it counts either for or against that other statement i.e. if it provides at
least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false.
-Thus, fallacies of relevance occur when the premises of an argument have no bearing upon its conclusion,
either positively or negatively.
-Such fallacies often involve a distractive element which diverts attention away from problem at hand.
-They are deceptive because of the psychological relevance that is often confused with logical relevance.
- Fallacies of relevance include:
1. Argumentum ad hominem (‘argument directed to the man’ or personal attack): arguments which try
to discredit a claim, proposal etc. by attacking its proponents instead of providing a reasoned examination
of the claim itself. There are several variants of this type, common ones being ad
hominemabusive,circumstantial and you too (TuQuoque)
1. a) Ad hominem abusive: committed when instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one
attacks the man who made the assertion on the basis of either a person’s age, character, family, gender,
ethnicity, appearance, dress, personality, economic status, behavior or professional, political, or social
affiliations. For instance Bacon’s philosophy is not trustworthy because he was removed from
chancellorship for dishonesty. This argument is fallacious because personal character is logically irrelevant
to the truth or falsehood of what he says or the correctness or incorrectness of the argument. They are also
called the genetic fallacies. The way this irrelevant argument may sometimes persuade is through the
psychological process of transference. They evoke an attitude of disapproval towards a person. The
implication is that there is no reason to take the person’s view seriously.
1. b) Ad hominem circumstantial – use the unique or special circumstances of a person to discredit his
reasoning. [Link] by association hence “poisoning the well” argument, Vested interest or unique
circumstances considerations etc.
1. c) Ad hominem Tuquoque (look, who’s talking): committed when arguer rejects another person’s
argument or claim because that person fails to practice what he [Link] is of the form:
X fails follow his or her own advice. Therefore, X’s argument or claim should
be rejected
Example: doctor: you should quit smoking
Patient: I will quit when you do.
2. Argumentum ad populum arguments (appeal to the people, masses, multitude or gallery,bandwagon):
occur when we infer a conclusion merely on the grounds that most people accept it. It tries to invoke the
band wagon effect, which asks us to join forces with others often irrationally. Hence assumes that because
something is popular, it is therefore good, correct or desirable. This fallacy is evident in populist political
speeches (demagoguery) and in much of advertising. These fallacies have this pattern:
Everybody (or a select group of people) believes or does X.
Therefore you should believe or do X.
-They usually associate things with people that arouse strong emotional approval from the masses.
-N.B. popular opinion cannot be taken as a proof that an idea is right or wrong. Remember everyone
believed that the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the universe!
[Link] Herring fallacy: committed when the arguer tries to divert the attention of his audience from the
subject under discussion (from the issue posed by an argument) by introducing irrelevant issue. Because it
is irrelevant, it contributes nothing to an argument, though it misleads its audience into thinking that the
original issue has been effectively settled by the irrelevant diversion. Red herring enable those who use
them to mask other defects in their arguments and thus to evade the real issue.
-The name of this fallacy comes from an old trick used by farmers in Europe to keep hunters and their dogs
from galloping through crops. By dragging a smoked herring with a strong odor along the edge of their
fields, farmers threw the dogs off the track by destroying the scent of the fox.
4. Argumentum ad Misericordian(inappropriate appeal to pity).This occurs when we arouse in the
audience sense or feeling of pity or sympathy and appeal to it to win argument. This is used mainly by
defense lawyers in the prosecution of [Link], not all arguments that contain emotional appeals are
fallacious. It is not fallacious if appeals to emotion are both appropriate and relevant to the arguer’s
legitimate purpose. The legal systems encourage this. It becomes fallacious when appeal to emotions is
meant to hinder or obscure rational thinking. They are fallacious because the premises provide no relevant
reasons to accept the conclusion.
Example of a fallacious argument
Student to teacher: I know I missed half of your classes and failed all my exams, but I had a really tough
semester. First my pet boa constrictor died. Then my girl friend told me she wants a sex- change operation.
With all I went through this semester, I don’t think I really deserve E. Any chance you might cut me some
slack and change my grade form E to C?
Example of a non fallacious argument
High school football coach: girls, this state championship is the biggest game of your lives.t5his is what
you have been working for all year. Your parents, your school as well as your community are counting on
you. Make them proud! Play like the champions you are!
5. Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force or appeal to scare tactics): this is committed when an arguer
threatens harm to a reader or listener if he does not accept the arguer’s conclusion, and this threat is
irrelevant to truth of the arguer’s conclusion. It is based on the fact that fear is so a powerful motivator that
it causes us to behave or think irrationally.
Diplomat to diplomat: I am sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful rulers of Migingo islands. It would
be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.
-This is fallacious because the scare tactics used provides no relevant evidence that supports the stated
conclusion
-However, not all threats involve fallacy: e.g.
President John Kennedy to Soviet premier: if you do not remove your nuclear missiles from Cuba,
we will have no choice but to remove them by force. If we use force to remove the missiles, that may
provoke an all-out nuclear [Link] of us wants a nuclear war. therefore you should remove your
nuclear missiles from Cuba.
-This is not a fallacy because the premises are relevant to the conclusion
6. Straw man fallacy: -Committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or claim to make it
easy to [Link] is characterized by misrepresentation of other people’s views or arguments. It has this
logical pattern:
X’s view is false or unjustified (but where X’s view has been unfairly characterized or misrepresented.
Therefore, X’s view should be rejected.
Example: Peterson has argued that the New York Yankees are a better baseball team than the Atlanta
Braves. But the braves aren’t a bad team. They have a great pitching staff, and they consistently finish
at or near the top of their division. Obviously, Peterson doesn’t know what he is talking about.
-This argument misrepresents Peterson’s view. Peterson hasn’t said Braves is a bad team but has only
compared it with New York Yankees
[Link] wrongs make a right fallacy: (closely related to fallacy of ‘look who’s talking’): occurs when an
arguer attempts to justify wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.
Example: I don’t feel guilty about cheating on [Link]’[Link] of the class cheats on his tests.
8. Ignoratio Elechi (fallacy of irrelevant conclusion): occurs when an argument purporting to establish a
particular conclusion is directed to proving a different conclusion. For instance, when a particular proposal
for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may rise to speak in favor of the bill, and argue
only that the decent housing for all people is desirable. His remarks are irrelevant to the point at issue, for
the question concerns the particular measure at hand. Presumably, everybody agrees decent housing is
desirable. The question is: will this particular measure provide it, and if so, will it provide it better than
any other alternative? In a law court, in attempting to prove that the accused is guilty of murder, the
prosecutor may argue at length that murder is a horrible crime.
-In the first place it is not always obvious that a given argument is an instance of ignoration elechi. What
leads to this fallacy?
1. During the course of extended discussion, fatigue may lead to inattention and errors, and
irrelevancies may tend to pass unnoticed.
2 The language may serve to evoke emotion as well as to communicate information.
7.2.3 Inductive fallacies or fallacies of insufficient evidence
These are mistakes in reasoning in which premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide
sufficient evidence for the conclusion. In other words, they occur when the inductive probability of an
argument (i.e. the probability of its conclusion given the premises) is low or at least lower than the arguer
thinks it is.
1. Argumentum ad Vericundiun (inappropriate appeal to authority): committed when an arguer cites a
witness or authority who there is good reason to believe is unreliable. It is characterized by acceptance (or
rejection) of a claim merely because of the prestige, status, or respect we accord its proponents (or
opponents) e.g. Testimonials – exemplified by celebrities who appear on adverts and commercials
endorsing products, services or brands of goods. There are some reasons why quoting authority may be
inappropriate (Refer to reasons for doubting credibility of the source under refutation of argument)
2. Hasty generalization means inferring a conclusion about an entire class of things from inadequate
knowledge or unrepresentative cases of some of its members. Hasty generalizations are usually fallacious
statistical/inductive generalizations and stem from biased, unrepresentative or inadequate sampling
techniques. They mostly occur in Pollsters, Surveys, marketing gimmicks:
Example: My Pastor is insincere therefore all Christians are insincere.
Faulty/weak analogy: this occurs when an arguer compares two (or more) things that aren’t really
comparable in relevant [Link] reasoning is a powerful tool in reasoning. However,
analogical reasoning depends quite sensitively on the degree and relevance of the similarity. It follows
this pattern:
A has characteristics w, x, y and z. B has characteristics w, x and z too. Therefore, B probably has
characteristic z too.
3. Fallacy of questionable cause or false cause: we live in a complex world whereby we may not exactly
tell what the cause of a certain phenomenon is. Fallacy of questionable cause occur when an arguer claims,
without sufficient evidence that one thing is the cause of something else. This fallacy has three common
variants:
3. a) Post hoc fallacy: (after this, therefore because of this): occurs when an arguer assumes without
adequate evidence that because one event, A, occurred, before another event, B, then A, must be the cause
of B.
3. b) Mere correlation fallacy: occurs when an arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence that because
A and B regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B, and vice versa.
3. c) Oversimplified fallacy: when an arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that A is the sole cause
of B when, in fact, there are several causes of B.
4. Argumentum ad ignoratium (appeal to ignorance): occurs when an arguer treats lack of evidence as a
reason to think that a claim is true or false. More precisely, the fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when
an arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proved it false or, conversely, that a claim is
false because no one has proved it true.
7.2.4 Fallacies of presumption
-These arise because the premises presume what they purport to prove. They include:
1. False dichotomy: Also called the Either-Or fallacy or fallacy of false dilemma or fallacy of false
alternatives.
-Occurs when an arguer poses false either / or choice. This fallacy forces one to choose between two
alternatives when more than two alternatives exist. It oversimplifies a complex issue by reducing it to a
simple either-or choice. The alternatives it presents do not exhaust all the possibilities.
Example: Either you are with us or you are against us
You are not with us. Therefore, you must be against us.
2. Complex question: also called the fallacy of many questions, loaded question, or fallacy of interrogation.
this fallacy occurs when an arguer asks a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
presupposition/questionable assumption. it consists of asking questions in such a way that any single answer
involves or implies other answers as well. in a complex question usually two or more questions are rolled
into one. in the case of two questions the second presupposes that a definite answer has already been
provided to the unasked question.
Example: do you still steal from your boss? yes or no
-these devices are exploited by lawyers in cross-examination to have the accused confused, incriminate
themselves. Also popular with propagandists
3. Slippery slope fallacy: occurs when the conclusion ofan argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction,
suggesting that a single step in the wrong direction will result in a disastrous or otherwise undesirable
outcome. In other words it is a fallacy which assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps
that cannot be prevented. It takes its name from the image of a boulder rolling uncontrollably down a steep
hill. Once the boulder gets started, it cannot be stopped until it reaches the bottom.A person who commits
this fallacy assumes that taking a first step will lead inevitably to a second step, and so on down the slope
to disaster, without providing evidence to support such a claim. Thus, to assume that all the later steps will
occur without proving that they will is to commit the slippery slope fallacy.
Example: passing laws to control the amount of violence on television is the first step in a process that
will result in absolute government control of the media and a total censorship of all forms of expression
4. petitiopricipii(begging question): occurs when an arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing
he or she is trying to prove as a conclusion. There are two common ways of committing this fallacy:
1. Simply restating the conclusion in slightly different words e.g. capital punishment is morally
wrong because it is ethically impermissible.
2. ‘Circular reasoning’ or ‘arguing in circle’: when an arguer offers a chain of reasons for a
conclusion, where the conclusion of the argument is stated or assumed as one of the premises.
example
Nelly: god wrote the bible
Mary: how do you know that?
Nelly: because it says so in the bible, and what the bible says is true.
Mary: how do you know that what the bible says is true?
Nelly: because god wrote the bible.
-this is circular: a because of b, b because of a.
7.2.5 Fallacies of ambiguity
- occur in arguments whose formulations contain ambiguous words or phrases and whose meaning(s) shift
and change in the course of the argument and thus render them fallacious.
-principally involve the use of language, hence also called fallacies of clearness. They are more subtle. They
include:
1. Equivocation: equivocation arises when we confuse the different senses a word or phrase may have,
when using them in different senses in the same context. In the context of an argument this is called fallacy
of equivocation. The main aim is either to hide the truth or to mislead the listener. Examples:
The end of a thing is its perfection. Death is the end of life. Hence death is the perfection of life.
It is silly to fight over mere words. Discrimination is just a word. Therefore, it is silly to fight over
discrimination.
Men are the only rational creatures on planet earth. No women are men. Therefore, no women are
rational
2. Amphiboly. In language this occurs when we cannot readily determine the meaning because of either
the words being arranged awkwardly or loosely. In the context of argument fallacy of amphiboly is
committed when it is stated as premise on interpretation which makes it true and conclusion is deduced on
the basis of interpretation that makes it false. Example:
Croesus, king of Syria wanted to go to war with king Cyrus of Persia. He went to consult the
oracles who told him; if you go to war with Persia you will destroy a mighty kingdom. He
went to war with Cyrus but he was methodically defeated. Complaining to the oracles, they
told him that what they had told him was true. It referred to destruction of his own (croesus)
kingdom.
3. Accent refers to emphases that generate multiple (and often misleading) interpretations. Fallacy of accent
is committed in an argument whose deceptive but invalid nature depends upon a change or shift in meaning.
The way the meaning shifts in this fallacy depends upon what parts of it are emphasized or accented. That
some statements have different meanings when different words are stressed is clear. Words may be
emphasized by for instance bolding, italizing, using capitals. The accented parts give an exciting but false
signifince. .e.g. newspaper headlines, contrasts, commercial ‘giveaways’ and deceptive entry forms are
frequent sources of fallacies of accent. e.g. revolution in France (is) feared by authorities.
4. Fallacy of composition: the term ‘fallacy of composition’ this is applied to both two closely related
types of invalid arguments
4. a) reasoning fallaciously from the properties of the parts of a whole to the properties of the whole itself.
e.g. since every part of the machine is light, the machine as a whole is light in weight.
-this is fallacious because a heavy machine may consist of a very large number of lightweight parts.
4. b) reasoning fallaciously from the properties possessed by individual elements or members of a collection
to the properties possessed by the collection or totality of those elements.
e.g. a bus uses more gasoline than automobile; therefore all buses use more gasoline than all automobile.
-this version of fallacy of composition results from confusion between the ‘distributive’ and the
‘collective’ use of general terms. ‘Distributive’ use of the term means that we are speaking of items taken
singly or severally. Collectively- means all the items together. Thus, buses use more gasoline than
automobiles (distributive), but collectively, automobiles use more gasoline than buses, because there are
so many more of them. thus, although college students may enroll in no more than six different classes
each semester (distributive), it is also true that college students enroll in hundreds of different classes
each semester (collectively)
5. Fallacy of division: this is simply the reverse of fallacy of composition. The same confusion is present
but the inference proceeds from the opposite direction. Likewise, it has two variants:
5. a) arguing that what is true of the whole is also true of the parts e.g. it would be fallacious to argue that
since a certain corporation is important, and mr. john is an official of that corporation. Therefore, Mr. john
is very important.
5. b) arguing from properties of a collection of elements to the properties of the elements themselves. results
from confusion of the collective and distributive meaning of general terms, where by an arguer applies what
is true of a class (collectively) to each and every member of that class (distributively).e.g. since university
students study medicine, law, engineering, and architecture, therefore, each or even any university student
studies medicine, law, engineering, and architecture. it is true that university students, collectively, study
all these various subjects, but false that university students, distributive, do so. Instances of this fallacy of
division often look like valid arguments, for what is true of a class, distributively, is certainly true of each
and every member. Thus, the argument:
Dogs are carnivorous. Japanese spaniels are dogs. Therefore, Japanese spaniels are dogs
8.3 Factors which lead into fallacious arguments?
(i) carelessness and being inattentive to detail
(ii) Use of the heart or emotions to think. They appeal to our emotions, prejudice, self-interests or blind
faith.
(iii) ambiguity in language – semantics/formulation of the argument
(iv) not acknowledging the limits of our knowledge, extent of our ignorance
(v) mental fatigue/tiredness
(vi) generally, not being critical and creative
[Link] help us avoid being victims of fallacious reasoning we need to be guided by the thinking map
used in evaluating arguments and reasoning.
7.0 E-tivity: Fallacies
Title Informal fallacies
Purpose To deepen students’ understanding of fallacies
Brief Summary of the Task Students to listen this video on Informal Fallacies
Individual Task Distinguish between formal and informal fallacies
Write down standard(s) of thinking violated in each category of
informal fallacies
nteraction Students to post their findings on chatroom
E-moderator interventions Ensure students are focused on the contents and context of the
discussion.
To harmonize students’ views
Provide feedback on the learning progress.
Close the e-tivity
Schedule and time The individual task will take 30 minutes
Next Decision making and problem solving
7.4 Summary
Informal fallacies occur due to the failure of the premises to establish a conclusion in that there lacks
either relevant or sufficient or clear grounds for the conclusion drawn. In other words, informal fallacies
occur due to lack of commitment to the standards of thinking such as: relevance, adequacy
(comprehensiveness/breadth/completeness), clarity (precision/accuracy) etc. as such we have fallacies of
relevance, fallacies of insufficient data, fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of pre-Sumption.
7.5 Further Activity
Attempt to construct fallacious arguments of all categories of informal fallacies while clearly
explaining why they are fallacious and ways to avoid them
7.6 Question
a) What is fallacy?
b) What is the difference between formal and informal fallacies?
c) Using relevant examples, explain the following categories of informal fallacies
✓ Fallacies of relevant
✓ Fallacies of induction/insufficient data
✓ Fallacies of ambiguity
✓ Fallacies of pre-Sumption
References
Mbithi Julius W., (2020) Critical Thinking (Canada: Nisemia Publishers) Pp.193 – 215)