HOW TO DETECT

A LIAR

COURTESY OF
TEACHER
JOSEPH
0722 242 906
(IELTS, OET, TOEFL and PTE Coach)

Hatuuziwi Uoga, na Hatuuziwi Uongo

1
 COMMON FALLACIES WHICH PEOPLE COMMIT WHILE
REASONING

Introduction

A FALLACY is what one may term as faulty reasoning or a misleading

argument. A fallacious argument leads to a wrong conclusion. We should
therefore avoid fallacies when analyzing literary texts. We should also be keen
to spot fallacies in a text in case an author commits such errors—consciously
or unconsciously—in the course of writing. E.g. a mango is a fruit, an orange is
a fruit, therefore a mango is an orange. Okonkwo is a man, Okonkwo beats his
wives, for this reason, Okonkwo is a bad person. Therefore all men are bad
people. We should therefore critically analyze the basis of an author’s argument
and we should only accept to be convinced on the grounds that the author’s
reasoning in whatever one says, one does not commit such errors. Characters
in a text can also commit fallacies in therefore conversations. We should
therefore be keen to notice the strength or weakness of an author or a
character’s statements by analyzing critically one’s reasoning. We too should
be cautious not to commit the same fallacies in our arguments as we analyze
literary texts. Some of these fallacies people commit include the following:

NOTE
Ex stands for Example

Do not aim at cramming the terms (of what each fallacy is called) but see the
weakness of reasoning that make the statements fallacious so that you can avoid
committing the same errors of reason.

2
 A. Fallacies of Induction

Accident - A sweeping generalization is used when an exception to the general rule is

warranted. Ex. Dogs are not allowed in here, so your Seeing Eye dog has to stay
outside. To counter it, show that there are exceptions to the general statement, and
this should be one of them. Ex. Most terrorists are Muslims therefore all Muslims are
terrorists.

Biased Sample - N% of sample S has characteristic C (where S is not representative of

the general population P) Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C. Ex. 66%
of the men in Dr. Spitzer's study of the "Ex-Gay" movement reported good heterosexual
functioning, therefore 66% of all homosexual men can change when 78% of the men in
the study were on the payrolls of "Ex-Gay ministries," or had publicly spoken in favor
of such programs. Counter-Ex. 72% of the six year olds polled say their bedtime is
before 9 PM, so 72% of Americans go to bed before 9. This is bad methodology, but it's
used all the time to prop up the Appeal to Popularity. Americans are usually
impressed by large numbers, so large numbers are used, however they are arrived at.
Check the methodology; if it's not available, that's a red flag, too. To prove this a
fallacy, show how the difference between the biased sample and the general
population would change the outcome of the poll.

Circular Argument - an argument in which the conclusion also occurs as an

unsupported premise. Ex. Eating cactus is unhealthy, so you shouldn't eat cactus,
because it's unhealthy. No valid evidence about whether eating cactus is or is not
unhealthy has been presented here. If you agreed with this statement before you
heard it, you will still agree. If you disagree, you will not accept this statement. If you
have no idea, this statement won't help you figure it out. Counter it by explaining that
the conclusion has been used as a premise, and so the argument is circular.

Converse Accident - An exception is used where a generalization is warranted. Ex. If

it's okay for him to bring his seeing eye dog in here, we should all be allowed to bring
our pets in. Point out the exception, again, and explain why it should not replace the
generalization. False Analogy - A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has
property P (where the likeness between A and B is tenuous, or they have a difference
that affects P.) Ex. Young men are like horses. You train your horse, and never let it
make any decisions on its own, so you should train your sons the same way. Counter-
Ex. Horses and cats are both animals with four legs. We saddle and ride horses.
Therefore, we should saddle and ride cats. No analogy is perfect. The strength of an
argument based on an analogy depends on the strength of the analogy. To gage that,
you need to know something about both subjects. To prove this a fallacy, all you need
to do is show that the two vary in some important way that would affect the analogy.
For instance, in the above example, horses are not sentient, and will never be expected
to live on their own. Young men will.

Hasty Generalization - This fallacy arises when the actions of a very small sample are
applied to a large, heterogeneous group. Ex. My three year old is reading on a second
grade level, so all three year olds should read. Counter-Ex. My cats have blue eyes, so
all cats have blue eyes. This might work for all pure bred Siamese cats, which are a
fairly homogenous group. But certainly not for all cats in general. The greater the

3
variety in the group, the greater the sample size needed to obtain any valid
information about the group as a whole. To prove it a fallacy, simply show that the
group is not homogenous, and that there is a great enough variation to render the
sample size too small.
One-Sidedness (Fallacy of Exclusion) - Presenting the evidence for one side of an
argument, and ignoring the evidence for the other side. This is something that you
have to watch out for in your own reasoning. (People who are trying to persuade you
will naturally be doing this. It's your job to find the evidence for the other side.) Ex.
There shouldn't be any new houses built, because there are lots of houses already, it's
bad for the environment to build more. This completely ignores the fact that the
population is continuing to increase, especially in certain areas. Those new people
have to live somewhere. To prove this a fallacy, present the opposing evidence, and
show how it would change the conclusion.

4
 B. Fallacies of Distraction - Misuse of an Operator
Argument from Ignorance - Assumes that if there is no evidence against (or for)
something, that thing must be true (or false.) Misuse of the NOT operator. Ex. There is
no evidence proving that hobbits don’t exist, so hobbits must exist. No evidence is
simply no evidence, and proves nothing. The conclusion may still be either true or
false. To prove this a fallacy, point that out.

False Dilemma - Either P or Q. Not-P. Therefore, Q. Ex. You are either for us or
against us. You are not for us. Therefore you must be against us. Counter-Ex. You are
either African or European. You aren't African, therefore, you must be European. (What
happens if you are Japanese?) Misuse of the OR operator, this one uses Contraries as
if they were contradictories. Contraries are two statements, at most one of which can
be true, but both of which might be false. (You are 24 years old, or you are 42 years
old.) Contradictories are two statements exactly one of which must be true. (You are 24
years old, or you are not 24 years old.) To prove this a fallacy, give an example of a
third choice.

Slippery Slope - (Causal version) If A is permitted, then by a series of tiny steps

through B, C, and so on we will eventually be permitting Z. We should not permit Z.
Therefore, we should not permit A. Misuse of the IF-THEN operator. Ex. If we let the
races intermarry, the next thing you know, we will be allowing marriage between
anyone! Between father and daughter, between man and animal, between a woman
and her household appliances. This one is used all the time to try to halt social change
that some find uncomfortable. It is fallacious in direct proportion to the connections
between the steps. The farther it is from A to B, the weaker this argument is. To prove
it fallacious, identify the final event, and show that it is not inevitable.

Loaded or Complex Question - A question that actually combines two questions,

treats them as one, and presupposes an answer to the first one. Misuse of the AND
operator. Ex: Have you stopped beating your wife? These cannot be answered directly,
because there is no answer that gives a true response. In the above case, if you say
"Yes" you are admitting that you used to beat her. If you say "No" you are admitting
that you are still beating her. There is no response that says, "I never did," or "I'm
single." These are used a lot as poll questions, to yield misleading answers. A recent
example, Who do you think is responsible for the current recession; Alan Greenspan, or
the Clinton Administration? No matter which one you pick, the pollsters will be able to
say, "n% of the population think that Alan Greenspan is responsible for the current
economic troubles of the nation, while n% think it is the fault of the Clinton
Administration." No other possibilities are even entertained. Watch for this when
reading polls. If it's not listed as a possibility, it wasn't on the poll, and no one could
choose it no matter whatthey thought. To prove this fallacious, identify the two
questions, and show that they each require a separate answer. In the above example,
for instance, the two questions really are, "Do you think that the current recession is
the fault of either Greenspan or Clinton?" and "Which one?"

5
 C. Syllogistic Errors, Fallacies of Propositional Logic, and
Non-Sequiturs
Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise - any three statements that lead to
an affirmative conclusion while having at least one negative premise. Ex. All notarized
documents are valid. Some forged documents are not valid. Therefore, some forged
documents are valid. Counter-Ex. All hawks are birds, some birds don't eat birdseed,
therefore some hawks do eat birdseed. To prove this a fallacy, show an example
reduced to the absurd proportions shown above.

Affirming the Consequent - if P then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Ex. If poverty was the result
of government regulation, we would see an increase in it. We do see and increase in it.
Therefore, poverty is the result of government regulation. Counter-Ex. If it's spring, then
the flowers will be blooming. The flowers are blooming. Therefore, it's spring. This is a
famous one, used in all kinds of manipulative arguments. As you can tell from this
example, it's meaningless. Flowers also bloom in the summer, fall, and even the winter
depending on your location. None the less, it's used for everything from selling soap to
selling politics. Don't buy it. (The argument, not the soap.) To prove it a fallacy, point
out other things that might be causing Q.

Affirming a Disjunct - P or Q. P. Therefore, not-Q. Ex. It's crisp or clean. It's crisp.
Therefore, it's not clean. This one is tricky, because it works if the "or" in the statement
separates two contradictories; that is, two statements which cannot both be true, but
one of which must be true. (It's Tuesday or it's not Tuesday.) But, in common speech,
which is usually pretty sloppy syllogistically, that is not necessarily the case. So watch
for this one, and decide for yourself if it's possible to have both at once. To prove it is a
fallacy, point out how it can be both. Ex You are a Christian or a Sinner. You are a
Sinner therefore you are not a Christian. Disjunct means an alternative.

Commutation of Conditionals - If P then Q. Therefore, if Q then P. Ex. If you are gay,

you have a good sense of style. Therefore, if you have a good sense of style, you are
gay. Counter-Ex. If you are President, then you are over 35. Therefore, if you are over
35, you are President. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Prove it is a fallacy by pointing
out an exception.

Denying the Antecedent - If P then Q. Not P. Therefore, not-Q. Ex. - If you use Soap X
you will have soft skin. You don't use Soap X, therefore, you won't have soft skin.
Counter-Ex. If you are a cat, you will be a mammal. You are not a cat, therefore you are
not a mammal. This one is used all the time in advertising and government, just like
Affirming the Consequent, above. Don't believe it. To prove it a fallacy, show that Q
can exist independently of P.

Denying a Conjunct - Not both P and Q. Not P. Therefore, Q. Ex. You can't be a
conservative and sympathize with the terrorists. You aren't a conservative, therefore you
sympathize with the terrorists. Counter-Ex. It can't be too hot and too cold. It's not too
hot. Therefore, it's too cold. Uh-huh. Sure. This is the reverse of the actual valid
argument, (Not both P and Q. P. Therefore, Not Q.) Don't confuse them. In the
fallacious form, it is possible for both statements to be false. In the valid form, one is

6
known to be true. Ex You cannot be rich and be poor. You are not rich. Therefore you
are poor. To prove it invalid, show that there are possibilities besides P or Q.

Exclusive Premises - No A are B. No B are C. Therefore, no A are C. Ex. No liberal

likes Rush Limbaugh, no one who likes Rush Limbaugh thinks for themselves, therefore,
no liberals think for themselves either. Counter-Ex. No young people are old. No old
people are under 30. Therefore, no young people are under 30. This fallacy uses two
negative premises to come to a conclusion. In order to have any kind of valid
categorical syllogism, at least one of the premises must be affirmative. Prove it a
fallacy by citing an example of an A who is C. Ex All women are not men. All men are
not good looking. Therefore all women are not good looking.

Inconsistency - Parts of the argument contradict or are contrary to other parts. Ex.
Sue is a better teacher than Alice. Alice is a better teacher than Harvey. Harvey can out
teach Sue any day of the week. Assuming that there aren't two teachers named Sue,
this won't work. To show the fallacy, point out the inconsistency by assuming that one
is true, and using it to show the others cannot all be true as well.

Illicit Conversion - All P are Q. Therefore, all Q are P. (or Some P are not Q,
Therefore, some Q are not P.) Ex. All KKK members are white. Therefore, all whites are
KKK members. Counter-Ex. All cars have wheels. Therefore, all things with wheels are
cars. (or Ex. Some people are not sane, so some of the insane are not people. Counter-
Ex. Some birds are not penguins. Therefore, some Penguins are not birds.) These are
tricky, because they are the reverse of actual validating arguments. Don't be fooled.
Prove it a fallacy by showing examples which don't follow the conclusion. Ex All Luos
are Africans, All Africans are Luos.

Illicit Major - All A are B. No C are A. Therefore, no C are B. Ex. All communists are
atheists. No conservatives are communists. Therefore, no conservatives are atheists.
Counter-Ex. All budgies are birds. No penguins are budgies. Therefore, no penguins are
birds. The error lies in a premise that refers to some members of a group, while the
conclusion refers to all of them. In the above example, the premise refers to some
atheists (those that are also communists) but the conclusion refers to all atheists (and
claims there are no conservatives among them.) To prove it a fallacy, show that there
are people who belong to both groups. Ex All Luos are People. No Hindu are a Luos,
therefore no Hindu are people.

Illicit Minor - All A are B. All B are C. Therefore, all C are A. Ex. All terrorists are
extremists. All extremists are radicals. Therefore, all radicals are terrorists. Counter-Ex.
All oaks are trees. All trees are plants. Therefore, all plants are oaks. Once again, the
subject of the conclusion refers to all of something, while the premise refers to only
some of them. (All radicals in the conclusion, but only those that are also extremists in
the premise.) Watch for this one. It's used a lot to make you think that all members of
a group are going to behave like a tiny minority do. To prove it's a fallacy, show that
someone or something can be C but not A. Ex All oranges are fruits. All fruits are
plants, therefore all plants are Oranges.

7
Improper Transposition - If P then Q. Therefore, if not P then not Q. Ex. If you follow
this diet, you will be healthy. Therefore, if you don't follow this diet, you won't be
healthy. Counter-Ex. If you murder your wife, she will die. Therefore, if you don't murder
her, she won't die. This may seem plausible, but it's a logical fallacy, like denying the
antecedent. To prove it a fallacy, point out a way that Q can exist without P.

Undistributed Middle Term - All A are C. All B are C. Therefore, all A are B. Ex. All
computer programmers use computers. All criminal hackers use computers. Therefore, all
computer programmers are criminal hackers. Counter-Ex. All cats have four legs. All
dogs have four legs. Therefore, cats are dogs. A very famous fallacy, and one that is
used a lot. Basically, it assumes a connection between two unconnected categories
because they share a common trait. To prove it a fallacy, explain that the two
categories are in fact unconnected in ways that are important to the conclusion.

D. Fallacies of Ambiguity

Accent - The emphasis of a statement leads one to believe the opposite of what the
statement actually says. Ex. My husband came home sober last night. (which implies
that he is usually drunk.) This is used to smear people, but in such a way that the
attacker can say they were only telling the truth. Clear it up by pointing out what the
statement actually says, and avoiding assumptions.

Equivocation - a fallacy resulting when the speaker and listener are using different
definitions for the same words. Ex. I pray to the Lord every day, when the listener
defines "Lord" as Jesus, and the speaker defines "Lord" as the Horned God. It can also
take a form where the ambiguous word is used twice, to equate two things that are
nothing alike. Ex. Evolution is a theory, and theories are just guesses, so evolution is
just a guess. In the first instance, "theory" refers to a specific scientific term, in the
second, to the vernacular meaning. To counter it, ask for the definition the speaker is
using, or point out that he is using two different definitions for the same word. Never
assume that your definition exactly matches that of someone else.

Ambiguous Middle - A three term argument, with an ambiguous middle term. Ex.
Wolves are wild animals. All dogs are related to wolves. Therefore, dogs are wild
animals. Counter- Ex. All life is sacred. Germs are alive. Therefore, it would be wrong to
kill a germ. In the first case, it really depends on how closely they are related, doesn't
it? The second is dependent on the definition of life. Counter it by asking for a
definition of the middle term.

Amphiboly - A fallacy caused by ambiguous grammar, as opposed to ambiguous

words. Ex. He used a fallacious argument to sell me soap, but I didn't buy it. It's unclear
whether "buy it" refers to the argument, or the soap. This one is usually a trap, when
you assume one meaning while the other was meant. But it can also be used
purposely to prop up an invalid argument, and make it seem valid, or to play into the
assumptions of the listener (The most famous example was the oracle telling Croesus
that if he went to war, he would destroy a mighty country. What she didn't say was
that it was his own.) Counter it by identifying the ambiguity, and asking for a clearer
definition.

8
Quoting Out of Context - Quoting part of what a passage says in such a way that the
original meaning of the quote is lost or distorted. Ex. Blessed is the man who walketh
not. (From Psalm 1:1, which actually says, "Blessed is the man who walketh not in the
councils of the ungodly...". My dad often quoted this as a joke excuse to take the car,
and a lesson in quoting out of context for us.) This is common in political debates,
where the opposing candidate is quoted in such a way that he seems stupid or
malicious; but it can happen anywhere. Counter it by finding the quote, and reading
the whole thing in context.

E. Changing the Subject and Misdirection

Appeal to Authority - Authority A believes P is true, therefore P is true. Authorities
can be mistaken, too; and often have been in the past. This is particularly true when
the authority's name is being used, but the belief is not in her field of expertise. Find
out if the authority is an authority on this topic, what kind of research she has done,
if her methodology is sound, if most of the other experts in the field agree or disagree
with her (and why) if she is being misquoted, or if she was joking or being sarcastic at
the time. (Yes, this one always takes research.)

Appeal to Force - Not really an argument at all, not even a fallacious one. Ex. If you
know what’s good for you, you’ll agree with me. But it has often been used to win
arguments in the past (usually when the side applying the force knows its losing
through logic.) Counter it by identifying the threat, and showing that it has nothing to
do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement.

Appeal to Popularity - Idea X is popular. Therefore, X is correct. Ex. 9 out of ten

Helens agree... This one is used, once again, to sell everything from soap to politics.
But it's not a valid argument. 20,000 Frenchmen can, in fact, be wrong.

Argument ad Hominem - introducing irrelevant personal remarks about your

opponent. Ex. How can you believe what he says about the economy? He had an affair!
The two have nothing to do with each other. But this one is used all the time;
generally, again, by those who know that they are losing the argument on logical
grounds. Counter it by identifying the attack, and showing that it is completely
irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Bad Company or Guilt by Association - P accepts idea Q, therefore Q must be

wrong. (where P is a person or group the audience doesn't want to be associated with.)
Ex. Communists favor socialized medicine, therefore socialized medicine is wrong.
Counter-Ex. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is wrong. This is used all
the time, to keep people from thinking about the actual merits or defects of an idea or
a thing. Counter it by identifying the tactic, and showing that the two have nothing to
do with each other.

Red Herring - a completely irrelevant argument thrown in to distract the audience.

Ex. You may say that cats make excellent pets, but I had a parrot once... Just ignore
them.

9
Straw Man - In this fallacy, a false (usually weak and/or extreme) position is
attributed to an opponent, the position is defeated, and the debater claims victory.
Meanwhile, the opponent's real positions are ignored. Ex. The ultraconservatives
believe that no one should ever receive medical aide from the government. If this
happens, children will die! They are clearly wrong. Or The bleeding heart liberals think
that everyone should have all his needs fulfilled by the government. The lazy bums
aren't willing to work for anything; they just want a handout. They are obviously wrong.
This is used a lot in political debates. Whenever you hear an extreme view attributed
to someone, look for a straw man. (Of course, you won't always find one. Some people
are really that extreme. But they are fairly rare, and usually neither side wants them.
Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps come to mind.) Counter this by finding or explaining the
real opponent's real positions.

Tu Quoque - Turning any criticism back on the accuser, instead of answering it. Ex.
There is no blue dress in the Enron case! This is a red herring, but it is used a lot, since
it often has the effect of making the accuser become defensive. It can also make her
reluctant to pursue the line of inquiry. Counter it by pointing out that it has nothing
to do with the discussion at hand. Ex. John why did you steal the old woman’s
mangoes? John responds, “Aren’t you a drug peddler yourself?

Two Wrongs Make a Right - Justifying wrong actions by pointing a finger at someone
else who has done something wrong. Ex. I kept the expensive sweater that Cathy left at
my house because she lied to my friend Joan. This one is the favorite of terrorists,
militants, and others who want to strike out. They all claim that because a
government or group did something they find morally objectionable, they are justified
in committing morally objectionable actions themselves. Counter it by pointing out
that wrong behavior is wrong behavior.

F. Fallacies of Causality
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - Event C and E both happened at once. Therefore, C
caused E. (or Events like C are always accompanied by events like E. Therefore, C type
events cause E type events). Ex. It always rains when I wash my car, so washing my
car must cause rain. In some cases, it's simple coincidence, or it doesn't actually
always happen. In other cases, a third event is causing both of the first two. (Joint
Effect) Prove it's a fallacy by finding a probable third event, or asking how the first
event could cause the second.

Post Hoc - Event C happened immediately before even E. Therefore, C caused E. Ex

The kid was playing computer games just before he committed suicide. Therefore, the
games made him kill himself. Counter-Ex. The pipes whistle just before the water stops
running. Therefore, the whistling makes the water stop. While it's true that events may
cause events that happen afterwards, they don't always do so. Sometimes they are
unrelated Sometimes, as in the example with the pipes, the supposed cause is actually
another effect of the real cause. In all such arguments, further evidence is in order.

Wrong Direction - This fallacy occurs when a cause and effect are connected, but the
effect is assumed to be the cause. Ex. The sun doesn't show up until it is light, so the
light must condense to make the sun. To counter it, show the actual causal

10
relationship. These are only a few of the fallacies that are used, intentionally and
unintentionally, in arguments. Be aware of them. Don't fall into the trap of using them
yourself, and don't believe them when others do. Anyone can learn to think clearly,
and I believe you will find the result well worth the effort.

11