INFORMAL

FALLACIES

Compiled by : Mohammed Z.
 CONTENTS
• Fallacies of Relevance
• Fallacies of Weak Induction
• Fallacies of Presumption
• Fallacies of Ambiguity
• Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

2
 Objectives :

. By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

. Knowledge:
– Define: What is a fallacy, and how does it weaken an argument?
– Differentiate: Distinguish between formal and informal fallacies.
– Categorize: Identify and classify informal fallacies into : fallacies of relevance, weak
induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy.
– Recognize: Apply your knowledge of fallacies to identify their presence in real-world
examples of arguments and conversations.
. Comprehension:
– Explain: Describe the specific reasoning errors committed in each category of informal
fallacies.
– Analyze: Evaluate the impact of fallacies on the strength and validity of arguments.
– Connect: Link different types of fallacies to broader concepts in critical thinking and logic.
. Application:
– Identify: Detect and label fallacies within your own written and spoken communication, as
well as the arguments of others.
– Avoid: Develop strategies to recognize and avoid using fallacies in your own arguments.
– Counter: Construct valid counter-arguments that expose and address the limitations of
fallacious reasoning.
. Evaluation:
– Judge: Assess the effectiveness of various techniques for identifying and correcting
fallacies.
– Reflect: Critically evaluate your own understanding of fallacies and areas for improvement.
– Communicate: Articulate the importance of recognizing and avoiding fallacies ineffective
communication and decision-making.
3
 Defining Fallacy
• Fallacies are errors or tricks of reasoning.
• We call a fallacy an error of reasoning if it occurs
accidentally; we call it a trick of reasoning if a
speaker or writer uses it in order to deceive or
manipulate his audience.
• Fallacies can be either formal or informal.
• Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it
is formal or informal, its use undercuts the
validity and strength of any argument.
• fallacious reasoning can damage the credibility of
the speaker/writer and improperly manipulate
the emotions of the audience/reader.

4
 Formal Fallacies
. Validity is astructural property, not a content-based one.
. Valid rules of inference, like modus ponens and modus tollens,
provide templates for valid arguments.
. Formal fallacies are arguments with inherently flawed forms,
destined to fail regardless of their content.
. Common formal fallacies:
. Denying the antecedent:
– Invalid form: If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.
– Example: "If it's raining, the streets are wet. It's not
raining. Therefore, the streets are not wet." (This is invalid because
the streets could be wet from other causes.)
. Affirming the consequent:
– Invalid form: If A, then B. B. Therefore, A.
– Example: "If it's raining, the streets are wet. The streets are
wet. Therefore, it's raining." (This is invalid because something else
could have made the streets wet.)

5
 Informal Fallacies
• Informal fallacies are everywhere in everyday conversations and debates.
• They rely on diverting attention from the actual logic of the argument.
• Analyzing the content and context of the argument is important to detect
them.
• informal fallacies are more dependent on misuse of language and of
evidence; can be detected only through analysis of the content of the
argument . Example:
P1: All factories are plants.
P2: All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
C: Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

ALL A ARE B
ALL B ARE C Formally Not
ALL A ARE C Fallacious !

6
 The presentation that follows divides twenty-
two informal fallacies into five main groups:
- fallacies of relevance,
- fallacies of weak induction
- fallacies of presumption
- fallacies of ambiguity, and
- fallacies of grammatical analogy.

7
 Fallacies Of Fallacies Of Weak Fallacies Of Fallacies Of Fallacies Of
Relevance Induction Presumption Ambiguity Grammatical Analogy

1. Appeal To 1. Unqualified 1. Begging The 1. Equivocation 1. Division

Force Authority Question

2. Amphiboly 2. Composition
2. Appeal To Pity 2. Appeal To 2. Complex
Ignorance Question
3. Appeal To 3. False-cause 3. False
People Dichotomy
4. Straw Man 4. Hasty 4. Suppressed
Generalization Evidence

5. Accident 5. Slippery Slope

6. Red Herring 6. Weak Analogy

7. Missing the
point

8. Argument
against the
person

8
 Fallacies of Relevance
• The fallacies of relevance share a common characteristic in
that the premises used in these arguments maybe
psychologically persuasive or emotionally appealing, but
they are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. As a result,
the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises,
creating a psychological illusion of validity, eventhough
there is no logical connection.
• Fallacies of relevance includes:
• Appeal to force (adbaculum)
• Appeal to pity (ad populum)
• Appeal to people (ad misericordiam)
• Argument against the person
• Straw man
• Accident
• Missing the point (ignoratio ellenchi)
• Red herring

9
 Appeal to Force ( Argumentum Ad Baculum )

• Argumentumad baculum, Latin for "argument to the

cudgel" or "appeal to the stick". It's the fallacy where
someone tries to win an argument by wielding the
threat of negative consequences if you disagree.
• The threat can be physical or psychological: From
physical violence to social exclusion, the consequences
can be designed to exploit your vulnerabilities.
• It can be director veiled: Sometimes the threat is
blatant, other times it's a subtle hint of disapproval or a
future "downside" if you dissent.
• It bypasses truth and logic: Regardless of the validity
of your point, adbaculumaims to silence you through
fear, not reason.

10
 Examples : Appeal to Force Fallacy
1. "You should agree with my political views, or else I'll
make sure you lose your job and ruin your reputation."
(attempting to force agreement by threatening negative consequences
rather than presenting valid arguments or evidence to support their
political views.)
2. "If you don't support my proposal, I'll spread damaging
rumors about you." (Using the threat of reputation damage to
force compliance.)
3. "If you don't comply, I'll physically harm you." (Employing
physical violence or harm as a means of getting someone to agree.)
4. "If you don't accept my argument, I'll ensure that you
never work in this industry again." (Using the threat of
professional exclusion to manipulate agreement.)
5. "If you don't follow my orders, you'll face severe legal
consequences." (Using the threat of legal repercussions to coerce
compliance.)

11
 Exceptions to Argumentumad Baculum:
• Facts and Consequences: When force or its threat isn't used to
persuade, but simply to inform about negative consequences
tied to an action, it ceases to be a fallacy. It becomes a neutral
statement of cause and effect.
• Self-Preservation and Legality: Statements like "If you smoke,
you increase your risk of cancer" aren't trying to coerce
someone to stop smoking, but simply stressing a factual
consequence. Similarly, if someone is encroaching, informing
them of potential legal consequences (being arrested) isn't
manipulation, but informing them of the reality of their
actions.
• Clear Boundaries and Legality: In cases where boundaries and
legal rights are at stake, like intruding, the threat of force
(calling the police) isn't meant to stifle debate, but to enforce
legitimate limits. It's the difference between someone
disagreeing with your opinion and someone violating your
property rights.

12
 Appeal to People (Argumentumad populum)
. The fallacy of appeal to the people, also known asad populum, takes
advantage of people's desires for love, respect, admiration, value,
recognition, and acceptance. It employs two main approaches:
. The direct approach occurs when an arguer addresses a large group of
people and uses emotional tactics to stir up the crowd's emotions and
enthusiasms, aiming to gain acceptance for their conclusion. The objective
is to create asense of collective mindset or mob mentality among the
audience.
– Example: Join us in protesting against this policy! We are the voice of the
people, and together, we can make a difference. Let's show the government
that we won't stand for this injustice!"
. In this example, the arguer directly addresses a large group of people and
tries to rally them behind a cause by appealing to their shared identity as
"the voice of the people." The argueraims to create a sense of unity and
strength in numbers, urging the crowd to join the protest against a policy
they perceive as unjust. The emotional appeal and the call for collective
action are meant to sway individuals to accept the conclusion and
participate in the protest.
. Remember, while it's important to stand up for causes we believe in, it's
crucial to evaluate arguments based on their logical merits rather than
solely relying on emotional appeals or the popularity of a particular
viewpoint.

13
 . The indirect approach involves the arguer targeting individuals within a crowd separately,
focusing on specific aspects of their relationship with the larger group. This approach
encompasses three versions:
. A. Bandwagon Argument: The arguerattempts to convince individuals to join the majority
or follow the popular opinion by suggesting that since everyone else is doing it, they should
too.
– Example: "Don't miss out on the latest fashion trend! Everyone is wearing these sneakers, and you
should too if you want to be seen as fashionable and in touch with the current style."
In this example, the arguer appeals to individuals'desire to fit in and be part of the crowd by
.
underlining the popularity of a particular fashion trend. They suggest that embracing the
trend will align them with the majority, encouraging them to follow suit.
. B. Appeal to Snobbery: The arguerappeals to individuals'desire for exclusivity or
superiority by suggesting that accepting the conclusion will place them in an elite group or
make them part of a select few.
– Example: "This limited-edition watch is reserved for discerning connoisseurs who truly appreciate
craftsmanship and luxury. Owning it will set you apart from the average consumer and elevate your
status."
. In this example, the arguer taps into individuals' desire to be seen as sophisticated and
superior by emphasizing the exclusivity of the product. They suggest that acquiring the
watch will place the individual in an elite group, elevating their social standing.
. C. Appeal to Vanity: The arguer plays on individuals' vanity or ego, emphasizing that
accepting the conclusion will increase their status, attractiveness, or self-worth in the eyes
of others.
– Example: "Use this skincare product to achieve flawless skin and become the envy of your friends.
Imagine the compliments you'll receive and how much more confident you'll feel."
. In this example, the arguer targets individuals'desire to be admired and validated by others.
They highlight the potential improvement in appearance and the positive social
consequences that come with using the skincare product, appealing to individuals'vanity
and self-esteem.
14
 Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misrecordiam)
. An appeal to people is an attempt to support a conclusion by merely
evoking pity in ones audience.
. Arguments that appeal to pity have the following structure:
Xis true
It would be terrible if X was not true
Therefore X must be true
. Humans are naturally inclined to help others in distress. Seeing
someone's pain activates our empathy, making us want to ease
their burden. This vulnerability leaves us susceptible to
manipulating emotions to influence (sway) our judgment.
. Methods to avoid falling for Appeal to Pity:
– Separate the plea from the facts: Analyze the evidence supporting the
claim, not just the emotional story.
– Question the logic: Does the conclusion logically follow from the suffering
described?
– Consider alternative solutions: Are there ways to address the person's
hardship without accepting their claim?

15
 Here area few real life examples of the appeal to pity fallacy:
1. But professor, I’m already on probation! If I don’t pass this course
“
then my student status here will be in jeopardy!” (While the situation
is unfortunate, it doesn't automatically guarantee passing the
course. The student needs to demonstrate academic merit, not rely on
pity.)
2. “Sir, I need this job badly, I have a wife and three kids to feed.” (While
their need is understandable, it doesn't guarantee they're the most
qualified candidate. The selection should be based on skills and
suitability, not emotional appeals)
3. “You really think he would be capable of such an act? Look at him,
that poor thing!” (Physical appearance or perceived vulnerability
doesn't determine guilt or innocence. Judgment should be based on
evidence and facts, not pity for their appearance)
4. “Your honor, before youreach a verdict I want you to consider the
fact that my client is the sole provider of his elderly parents, one of
whom was recently diagnosed with a terminal illness.” (While the
client's family situation is challenging, it doesn't excuse any potential
wrongdoing. Justice should be served based on the crime, not on the
defendant's family circumstances.)

16
 . Exception to appeal to pity: not every appeal to compassion(pity) falls into
the fallacy trap. Genuine calls for empathy can be both powerful and
ethically sound. Here'show to distinguish the two:
. Appeal to Pity Fallacy Vs. Genuine Appeal:
– Fallacy: Exploits emotions without substantial evidence or a justifiable response.
It uses pity as a shortcut, bypassing logic and facts.
– Genuine Appeal: Presents compelling evidence of suffering and proposes a
reasonable response based on empathy and sound reasoning .
Example: As a result of war and famine, thousands of children in country X are
malnourished. You can help by sending money to Relief Agency Y. So, please send
whatever you can spare to Relief Agency Y.
. In the case of the malnourished children in Country X, consider
these points:
– Evidence: The claim of malnutrition due to war and famine needs
verification. Are there credible sources or reports supporting this claim?
– Justification for Pity: Are the children truly in dire need of aid? Understanding
the severity of the situation fuels genuine compassion.
– Reasonable Response: Is sending money to Relief Agency Y the most effective
way to help? Are there alternative solutions or better-equipped organizations?

17
 Arguments against the Person (Ad Hominem)
• Ad hominem fallacy attempts to discredits an argument
by discrediting the arguer.

• Ad hominem has three types.

I. Abusive : respondent verbally abuses the arguerand
ignores the argument.
II. Circumstantial : respondent calls attention to special
circumstances (interest) of the arguerand ignores the
argument.
III. Tu quoque: respondent attempts to make the arguer
look hypocritical.

18
 . Ad Hominem (Abusive):
.
Ad Hominem (Latin for "against the person") is afallacy that involves
attacking the person making an argument instead of addressing the
argument itself. This fallacy occurs when the attack on the person is
completely irrelevant
– Example: "Tony claims to
thatthe
the argument
origin of life being made.
was an'accident,'but how can we trust
him? He's a godless person who has spent more time in jail than in church."
In this example, the person making the argument attacks Tony personally
. by stressing his lack of religious belief and criminal history. However, these
personal characteristics are entirely irrelevant to the argument Tony is
making about the origin of life. The fallacy diverts attention away from the
argument itself and attempts to discredit Tony as a person rather than
engaging with the substance of his claim.
Note: When others resort to personal attacks, it can be seen as a
. compliment to the quality of your argument. Such attacks often indicate
their desperation rather than a valid rebuttal of your position. It's
important to stay focused on the substance of the argument and avoid
getting sidetracked by irrelevant personal attacks. Remember, a strong
argument stands on its own merits, regardless of the character or

19
background of the person making it.
 Exception to Abusive Adhominem
. While abusive ad hominem throws around irrelevant personal attacks, there
are situations where attacking someone's character can be relevant to the
discussion. Remember, the key lies in the connection between the attack and
the argument's
Examples topic. Ad Hominem:
of Permissible
.
– Job Interviews and Credibility: During an interview, questioning a candidate's past ethical
lapses on financial matters is relevant to a position requiring financial integrity. This isn't
mudslinging; it's assessing their fit for the role.
– Elections and Leadership: In politics, scrutinizing a candidate's intellectual ability, moral
compass, and even charisma is appropriate. These qualities directly impact their competence
and suitability for leadership.
– Expertise and Trust: When evaluating a scientific claim, considering the source's past record
of providing accurate and verifiable information is valid. We weigh the credibility of the
messenger before accepting their message.
Even in these allowed cases, the line between appropriate ad hominem and abusive mudslinging
can be narrow. Here are somethings to consider to avoid abuse:
. Focus on specific actions or qualities: Stick to specific instances where the person's
characteristics demonstrably impact the matter at hand.
. Avoid generalizations and insults: Don't resort to sweeping generalizations or personal
attacks that have no bearing on the argument.
. Maintain respect and objectivity: Even when addressing relevant personal aspects, strive
for respectful and objective analysis, not baseless slander

20
 Circumstantial Ad Hominem
• A circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is committed when
someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking
the motives or circumstances of the person making
it, rather than addressing the argument itself. This tactic
is logically fallacious because the speaker's personal
situation does not inherently affect the truth or validity
of their claim.
• An argument falls prey to the circumstantial ad
hominem fallacy when its rejection is based on who is
making it, rather than what is being said. This fallacy
assumes that someone's vested interests or life
experiences automatically render their opinions
unreliable, which is not necessarily true

21
 Examples of circumstantial adhominem
1. A politician claims that it is in the country's best interest to expand oil
production. Her opponent claims that she is only saying that because her state
benefits from oil production. (The politician's argument focuses on the country's
best interest, while her opponent attacks her motive by suggesting she's biased due
to her state's benefit. This disregards the validity of her argument itself.)
2. Paula argues that more girls should serve on the student council. Nate says that
she only believes that because she is a girl. (Paula advocates for increased female
representation, but Nate dismisses her opinion by attributing it solely to her own
gender, ignoring the potential merit of her reasoning)
3. Taylor tells the teacher that the mostrecent quiz should not be counted in the
grade. john says that Taylor only feels that way because he didn't dowell on the
quiz. (Taylor suggests excluding the quiz based on fairness or pedagogical
reasons, but John dismisses it based on Taylor's performance. This disregards any
possible legitimate justifications behind Taylor's proposal)
4. Mrs. Jones says that she thinks the Teacher of the Year should get a special
parking place. Mr. Bullins says that Mrs. Jones thinks that because she is the
Teacher of the Year this year. (Mrs. Jones proposes a perk for the Teacher of the
Year, but Mr. Bullinscasts doubt on its objectivity by suggesting self-interest as the
motivation. This ignores the possibility of a genuine belief in the benefit for the
position despite holding it herself.
)

22
 You too (tu quoque)
. Dismissing an argument based solely on the speaker's past actions or
inconsistencies is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy. This fallacy assumes
that hypocrisy automatically invalidates an argument, which is not always
the case.
Examples:
1. Diet advice:
– Claim: Person A tells you to eat more vegetables for better health.
– Tu quoque: You retort, "You never eat vegetables yourself, so why should I listen to you?"
2. Animal rights:
– Claim: Person B argues against factory farming on ethical grounds.
– Tu quoque: You point out, "You still wear leather shoes, though. Aren't you being
inconsistent?"
3. Environmental conservation:
– Claim: Person C advocates for reducing single-use plastics.
– Tu quoque: You counter, "But you drive agas-guzzling SUV. How can you preach about
the environment?“
. In all these cases, the "tu quoque" fallacy is committed by focusing on the
person's perceived hypocrisy rather than addressing the merit of their
actual argument. It's important to remember that:
– Inconsistency doesn't always yields wrongness: Someone can advocate for positive
change even if they haven't perfectly achieved it themselves.
– Focus on the argument: Evaluate the claim based on its logic, evidence, and
23 reasoning, not the speaker's personal history.
 Straw man fallacy
• The straw man fallacy is committed when someone attempts to
refute an argument by attacking a distorted, exaggerated, or
simplified version of it, rather than engaging with the actual
claims or reasoning presented. This fallacious tactic creates the
illusion of successfully defeating the opponent's position while
ignoring its more substantial points.
• A fallacious argument based on misrepresenting an opponent's
position is known as a straw man fallacy. Instead of addressing
the true argument, the straw man fallacy attacks a weaker or
easily refuted version of it, giving the impression of victory
without addressing the key points.

24
 Examples of straw-man
1. Pro-choice is absurd. How could anyone support killing an innocent human
being? (This portrays the pro-choice position as solely focused on ending a
life, ignoring arguments based on bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and
multifaceted views on fetal development.)

2. Egalitarianism is wrong because it is the same as communism . (This falsely

equates egalitarianism, which seeks equal opportunity and outcomes, with the
specific economic system of communism, disregarding other egalitarian approaches
and ignoring potential differences in goals and implementation.)
3. It's appalling tome that the people who oppose the death penalty believe
the lives of convicted murderers are more important than the lives of their
victims. This alone shows that the opponents of capital punishment are
wrong . (This oversimplifies the complex debate by framing it solely as a choice
between protecting victims and murderers. It ignores arguments about
rehabilitation, justice vs. vengeance, and potential risks of wrongful convictions.)
4. Smith : There is no logical or moral justification for the killing of animals for
food. Animals are sentient creatures that deserve the same consideration as
humans. Joe: Look, if you want to eat grass like a cow, Bon Appetit! Just let
me have my hamburger. (This dismisses the ethical arguments against animal
25
consumption with a sarcastic jab, ignoring discussions about sentience, animal
welfare, and alternative food systems)
 Accident Fallacy
. The accident fallacy occurs when a general principle is
misapplied to an exceptional case that it was not designed to
address, leading to an erroneous conclusion.
. EXAMPLE :
– "Driving above the speed limit is illegal. Therefore, it should be illegal
to drive faster than the speed limit even in emergencies."
In this example, the arguer commits the fallacy of accident by applying the
general rule that driving above the speed limit is illegal to all situations,
including emergencies. While it is generally true that driving above the
speed limit is against the law, there are circumstances where exceeding the
speed limit may be necessary in order to respond to emergencies and
ensure public safety. By not considering the unique context of
emergencies, the argueroverlooks the potential harm in strictly enforcing
the speed limit in such cases, leading to an unreasonable and impractical
conclusion.

26
 Examples: Accident Fallacy
1. “Taking alife is a crime and morally wrong; therefore, termite
control is a crime and morally wrong” . (General rule is
incorrectly applied to termite control, ignoring the crucial
difference between intentionally harming humans and pest
control measures in homes.)
2. “Birds can fly; therefore, ostrich must be able to fly too.” (the
general rule (birds can fly) ignores exceptions like ostriches, which
have evolved specialized traits for running rather than flying)
3. “Nuts are proven to have a variety of great health benefits to
people. Thus, it must be right to say that everyone should be eating
them. (Not everyone should necessarily eat nuts due to potential
allergies, digestive issues, or dietary restrictions. Individual needs and
contexts matter.)
4. Whoever thrusts a knife into another person should be arrested.
But surgeons do precisely this when operating. Therefore, surgeons
should be arrested. (The rule ignores the specific context of
surgery, where such actions are performed with intent to heal, not
harm, making them exempt from the broader rule.)

27
 Missing the point (Ignoratio ellenchi)
• The fallacy of "missing the point," also known as "ignoratio
ellenchi," occurs when someone ignores or fails to address the
actual issue at hand and instead presents a conclusion that is not
logically connected to the premises. In order to recognize and avoid
this fallacy, one should be able to identify the correct conclusion
that logically follows from the given premises.

• For example, "Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at

an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: we must
reinstate the death penalty immediately."

• In this case, the conclusion of reinstating the death penalty is not

directly supported by the premises regarding the increase in theft
and robbery. This argument commits the fallacy of "missing the
point" because it fails to address the appropriate solution or
response that logically follows from the stated premises. It involves
emotional appeal (urgency of the situation might caused it) to
address a situation rather than considering alternative solution.

28
 Red Herring
• The red herring fallacy occurs when the person making
an argument intentionally redirects the attention of the
audience by introducing a different topic, which maybe
subtly related, but is not directly relevant to the original
issue at hand.
• This fallacy is also known as the "off-the-track" fallacy. Its
purpose is to divert attention and steer the discussion
away from the main point or topic being discussed.

29
 EXAMPLES : REDHERRING
1. In business, arguing against giving raises - "Sure, we haven't given raises in
over five years to our employees. You know, we work really hard to make a
good product. We try to ensure the best customer service, too.“
(Argument: Employees haven't received raises in five years. Red herring: The company's
efforts and service. Focus: The argument should address the merits of raises based on
factors like employee performance, cost of living, and market competition.)
2. In politics, defending one's own policies regarding public safety - "I have
worked hard to help eliminate criminal activity. What we need is economic
growth that can only come from the hands of leadership . (“Argument: The
politician sells their efforts against crime. Red herring: Economic growth. Focus: The
discussion should stay on specific policies and programs targeting crime prevention and
public safety initiatives.)
3. A manager is announcing to his staff that they will be moving business
locations, and there will be job losses as a result. The manager says to his
team, “We will be moving our business to Mexico. Some jobs will be lost, but
Mexico has incredible weather and beautiful beaches.” (Argument: Job losses due
to relocation are announced. Red herring: Pleasant weather. Focus: The manager should
acknowledge the impact of job losses and provide concrete support or compensation packages
to affected employees.)

30
 Exercise - 1
Instruction: Identify the fallacies of relevance committed by the following arguments,
giving a brief explanation for your answer.
1. Taxpayer to judge: Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents
on my tax return, eventhough I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion,
my reputation will be ruined. I’ ll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able
to have the operation that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am
not guilty.
2. “ No one should ever goto war. After all, everyone knows that one should not kill
another person.”
3. You should read Daniel’s latest book right away. It’s sold over a million copies, and
practically everyone in the main street circuit is talking about it.
4. Surely you welcome the opportunity to join our protective organization. Think of all the
money you will lose from broken windows, overturned trucks, and damaged
merchandise in the event of your not joining.
5. Something is seriously wrong with university education these days. After twelve years of
decline, scores are still extremely low, and university graduates are practically incapable
of reading and writing. The obvious conclusion is that we should close the universities.
6. Professor Ballard s argument in favor of restructuring our course offering isnt worth a
’ ’

hoot. But what would you expect from someone who publishes in such mediocre
journals? And did you hear Ballard’s recent lecture on Aristotle? It was total non-sense.

31
 Fal lacies o f weak indu ction
cie s of weak nd uction diff r fr o m the falla
. The falla i e cies of
relevance in that their flaw lies not in having logically
irrelevant premises, as is the case with the eight fallacies
of relevance. Instead, the problem with weak induction
lies in the insufficiency of the connection between the
premises and the conclusion, which is not strong enough
to adequately support the conclusion.
. Fallacy of weak induction includes :
– Appeal to unqualified authority
– Appeal to ignorance
– Hasty generalization
– False cause
– Slippery slope
– Weak analogy

32
 Appeal to Unqualified Authority
. The fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority is a specific type of
argument from authority. It takes place when the authority or witness
being cited is not reliable or trustworthy. There are multiple reasons
why an authority or witness may lack trustworthiness:
– Lack of ability: The person may not possess the necessary
expertise, knowledge, or qualifications in the relevant field to be
considered a reliable source of information or opinion.
– Lack of trustworthiness/credibility: The individual may have a
history of being dishonest, unreliable, or having a questionable
track record, making their statements or claims less credible.
– Motive to deceive or spread misinformation: The person may have
a hidden agenda, personal bias, or a vested interest that could
influence their testimony or information, leading them to provide
inaccurate or misleading statements.
. These factors undermine the reliability and credibility of the authority
or witness being invoked, making the appeal to unqualified authority
fallacious. It is important to critically assess the qualifications,
trustworthiness, and potential biases of the authorities or witnesses
being relied upon to ensure the validity of an argument.

33
 Example:
• Imagine a popular actor named Alexis promoting a new diet plan on social media. Alex
claims to have achieved remarkable weight loss results by following this diet and
encourages their followers to try it as well.
• While Alexis widely recognized and admired for their acting talent, they do not possess
the qualifications or expertise in the field of nutrition or dietetics. Their success in the
entertainment industry does not automatically make them a reliable or trustworthy
source of dietary advice.
• The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy occurs when people are swayed by Alex's
celebrity status and assume that their endorsement of the diet plan is based on genuine
expertise. However, without proper credentials or knowledge in nutrition, Alex's
recommendations lack the necessary foundation to be considered reliable or accurate.
• To make an informed decision about the diet plan, it is important to consult qualified
professionals such as registered dietitians or nutritionists who have the appropriate
education, training, and experience in the field of nutrition. Relying solely on the
endorsement of a celebrity, despite their lack of qualifications, would be fallacious and
potentially lead to misguided dietary choices.
• In this example, the appeal to unqualified authority arises from the assumption that
Alex's fame and success in acting automatically translate into expertise in the field of
nutrition . It is essential to critically evaluate the qualifications and credibility of the
authority being cited to ensure that the information or advice provided is trustworthy and
based on reliable expertise.
34
• Example: Imagine a person named Sarah is engaged in a discussion about
childhood vaccinations. Sarah argues, "The surgeon-general has stated that
babies should receive the MMR vaccine. So, it is unquestionable that babies
should receive the MMR vaccine."
• In this example, Sarah is relying on the statement made by the surgeon-general
as the sole basis for her argument. However, the fallacy of unqualified
authority can be identified in this situation.
• Firstly, the intent of the arguer (Sarah) is important to consider. Sarah is using
the statement of the surgeon-general as an appeal to authority without
critically assessing the evidence or reasoning behind the recommendation.
Instead of presenting a well-reasoned argument with supporting evidence,
Sarah simply relies on the authority of the surgeon-general to make her case,
assuming that their statement alone is sufficient to support her position .
• Secondly, the credibility and trustworthiness of the surgeon-general should be
evaluated. While the surgeon-general is a recognized authority in matters of
public health, it is essential to consider that their statement may be subject to
scrutiny and potential biases. It is important to critically examine the evidence
and reasoning behind the recommendation rather than accepting it blindly
based solely on the authority's position.

35
 Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad
Ignorantiam)
The appeal to ignorance fallacy, also known as Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, occurs
when
Examplean argument's
: Throughoutpremises
history,state that numerous
despite something attempts,
has not been proven orevidence
no scientific is unknown,
has
been
but thepresented
conclusiontoasserts
prove athe existence
definite claimofabout
reincarnation.
that thing.Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that reincarnation does not occur.

In this example, the fallacy of appeal to ignorance is committed because the lack of
evidence for reincarnation is used as a basis to assert that reincarnation does
not happen. The argument assumes that the absence of proof equates to the
negation
Exception:ofInthetheclaim. lackofof
context evidence
a court is not
of law, thethe same as evidence
presumption of absence.
of innocence It is
until proven
guilty is that
possible an exception to thehas
the evidence appeal
not tobeen
ignorance fallacy.
discovered orAccording to this
that further legal principle,
research is
needed. Therefore, concluding that reincarnation does not occur solely based on theto
a defendant is considered innocent until the prosecutor presents sufficient evidence
prove their guilt isbeyond
absence a reasonable doubt. In this specific context, the absence
of proofofisproof
used to fallacious.
maintain the presumption of innocence rather than making a
definite assertion of guilt. This exception recognizes the importance of upholding the
burden of proof in legal proceedings.

36
 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when a general conclusion is made based on a
sample that is biased or too small to accurately represent the entire population.
Example 1: In order to determine the beliefs of most Americans regarding God, a survey
was conducted among over ten thousand scientists at colleges and universities across
America. Less than 40 percent of the scientists surveyed reported believing in God. From
this, it is concluded that most Americans no longer believe in God.
This argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization because it draws a general
conclusion about the beliefs of most Americans based on a sample that is biased and not
representative of the entire population. The survey was conducted exclusively among
scientists, who may hold different beliefs compared to the general population. Therefore, it is
not valid to generalize the beliefs of the entire American population based on this biased
sample.
Example 2: Over the past six months, I have hired three individuals from India, and all three
have been lazy and dishonest. Therefore, I conclude that Indians, as a group, are lazy and
dishonest.
This example illustrates the fallacy of hasty generalization. The conclusion is based on a small
sample size and assumes that the behavior of these three individuals is representative of all
Indians. It fails to consider other factors such as individual differences, personal
characteristics, and cultural diversity within the Indian population. Drawing a general
conclusion about an entire group based on a limited sample is an unjustified and biased
generalization.
In both examples, the fallacy of hasty generalization occurs because the general conclusions
reached are not supported by sufficiently representative or unbiased samples. It is important
to gather a substantial and diverse sample size to draw accurate conclusions about a larger
population and avoid making hasty generalizations.

37
 False Cause:
• The fallacy of false cause occurs when a causal connection between
premises and conclusion is assumed, even though there is no substantial
evidence to support it.
• The false cause fallacy can manifest in various ways, one of which is the
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, meaning "after this, therefore on
account of this." In this fallacy, a temporal relationship is mistaken for a
cause-and-effect relationship.
• Example: After observing several basketball games I attended this year, I
noticed a pattern. Every time I purchased a good seat, our team won.
Conversely, every time I bought a cheap, bad seat, we lost. Therefore, I
concluded that my choice of seating somehow caused our team's winsor
losses.
• This argument commits the false cause fallacy of post hoc ergo propter
hoc. It assumes that the temporal sequence of events (buying a good seat
and the team's subsequent win) implies a causal relationship between the
two. However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. There
may be other factors at play, such as the team's performance, the
opponents they faced, or even random chance, that contribute to
the outcomes of the games.
• Without further evidence establishing a direct causal link between
purchasing a good seat and the team's success, the conclusion that buying
a good seat causes the team to win is unwarranted. The observed pattern
may be coincidental or influenced by other variables, making it fallacious

38 to assume acausal connection based solely on a temporal relationship

 Post hoc: examples
1. I sneezed at the sametime the power went off. My sneeze
did something to make the power go off . (the person's sneeze
caused the power outage simply because the two events happened at the same time. In
reality, the power outage could have been caused by a completely unrelated factor, such as
a problem with the electrical grid.)
2. The footballteam lost last week, and now this week's pep-
rally is cancelled. I can't believe that the principal would do
that! (In reality the pep rally was cancelled because of a
required standardized test.) (it assumes that the principal cancelled the pep rally
as a punishment for losing the football game. However, the true reason for the cancellation was
the standardized test. The occurrence of the footballteam's loss and the cancellation of the pep
rally were coincidental.)
3. Kevin's dog scratched his leg, and that night he had a fever.
Kevin concluded that his dog must have infected him with
something. (the dog's scratch caused Kevin's subsequent fever. While it is possible that
the scratch led to an infection, there could be other explanations for Kevin's fever, such as a
common illness or coincidence.)
4. Lois and Jan did a "snow dance" one afternoon, and it
snowed that night. They claimed to have brought the snow.
(Lois and Jan attribute the occurrence of snowfall to their snow dance. However, the snowfall
might have been purely coincidental or the result of natural weather patterns. The dance does
not necessarily have a causal relationship with the snowfall.)

39
 II. non causa procausa (‘‘ not the cause for the cause’’ )
• occurs when an explanation mistakenly identifies a
correlation as a causation.
• In this fallacy, one thing is presented as the cause of
another, but the connection between the two is
misunderstood.
• This can involve either attributing the effect as the
cause or incorrectly assuming cause and effect
between two phenomena that are actually both
results of a common cause.
• The term "non causa procausa" is aconcise way of
referring to this fallacy, but it is also commonly known
as "non causa."

40
 Examples of Non causa
1. Putting more police on the streets actually causes crime to
increase! When we increased the number of cops on the
beat, the number of crimes witnessed by police actually
went up.(In this example, the argument claims that the increase in the number
of police officers on the streets directly caused an increase in crime. However, this
conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the correlation between police
presence and reported crimes. It is possible that the increased police presence led
to a higher number of crimes being observed and reported, rather than causing an
actual increase in crime. The correlation between police presence and crime rates
does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.)
2. People on Medicaid tend to be sicker than people who do
not have insurance at all. This proves that Medicaid is a bad
idea. Putting people on Medicaid actually causes them to get
sick. (In this example, the argument suggests that being on Medicaid,a government
healthcare program, causes people to become sicker compared to those who have no
insurance. However, this conclusion overlooks the fact that people who qualify for Medicaid
often have lower incomes and may have pre-existing health conditions. The correlation
between being on Medicaid and having poorer health does not necessarily mean that
Medicaid is the cause of their poorer health. Other factors, such as socioeconomic status and
pre-existing conditions, could be influencing the observed correlation.)

41
 III. The fallacy of oversimplification
• The fallacy of oversimplification occurs when an arguer intentionally selects a
single factor and presents it as the sole cause or solution to a complex
problem. This fallacy disregards the intricate details and complexities that
deserve consideration in a comprehensive analysis.
• Example: The scores on standardized tests have been dropping for several
decades. What accounts for this? Well, during these same decades, the
average time a child spends watching TV (per day) has increased. Therefore,
the cause is obvious: Kids are watching too much TV when they need to be
reading instead.
• In this example, the arguer oversimplifies the decline in standardized test
scores by attributing it solely to increased TV watching among children. This
oversimplification ignores other potential factors, such as changes in
educational policies, socio-economic disparities, teaching methodologies,
and technological advancements. By focusing solely on TV watching as the
cause, the arguer neglects a thorough examination of the broader and more
complex factors that may contribute to the decline in test scores.
• Oversimplification often occurs in various forms of media for the sake of
brevity, clarity, or to serve a particular political purpose. By reducing complex
issues into simplistic explanations, the true complexity and depth of the
subject matter can be overlooked, leading to an incomplete or misleading
understanding of the problem at hand. It is important to recognize and
critically evaluate these oversimplifications to gain a more accurate
understanding of complex issues.

42
 Slippery Slope
• The Slippery Slope fallacy arises when an argument's conclusion is based on the
assumption of a chain reaction of events, without adequate justification for
believing that the chain reaction will truly occur.
• In this fallacy, the arguer asserts that if one event happens, it will trigger a series of
subsequent events that will lead to increasingly negative or extreme outcomes.
However, there is insufficient evidence or reasoning provided to support the
likelihood of this chain of events actually unfolding.
• It's important to note that while causal relationships between events can exist and
be validly argued, the Slippery Slope fallacy goes beyond that by making
unjustified claims about a sequence of events without a strong basis..

43
 Example: If we allow students to use smartphones in the classroom for
educational purposes, it will lead to complete chaos. They will become
addicted to their devices, lose focus on their studies, and ultimately fail
their exams. Therefore, we should ban smartphones altogether.
In this example, the arguer claims that allowing students to use
smartphones in the classroom for educational purposes will lead to a chain
reaction of negative consequences. However, there is no sufficient reason
provided to support the assertion that this chain reaction will actually
occur. The argument assumes that the mere presence of smartphones will
automatically lead to addiction, loss of focus, and academic failure without
considering other factors, such as the implementation of proper guidelines
or the potential benefits of using technology in education.

The Slippery Slope fallacy is evident in this example as the conclusion is

based on an alleged chain reaction of events without adequate justification
for the likelihood of that chain reaction actually taking place.

44
 Weak Analogy
. The fallacy of weak analogy occurs when an argument relies on
an irrelevant or weak comparison, or when there is a more
appropriatedis-analogy present.
. Weak analogy is often likened to the phrase "comparing apples
with oranges," where two things that are fundamentally
different or incomparable are being compared. Apples and
oranges share some basic features like being fruits, but their
differences in taste, texture, and usage render them poor
comparisons for most purposes.
. The basic structure of an argument based on analogy is as
follows:
– Entity A possesses attributes a, b,c, and z.
– Entity B possesses attributes a,b,c.
– Therefore, it is likely that entity B also possesses attribute z.
. However, the fallacy of weak analogy occurs when the analogy
between Entity A and Entity B is not strong enough to support
the conclusion. This could be due to relevant differences
between the entities that undermines the comparison being

45
made.
 • Example: "Implementing stricter gun control laws is like banning
kitchen knives because they can be used as weapons. Just as werestrict
access to dangerous objects like knives, we should restrict access to
firearms."
• In this example, the arguer attempts to draw an analogy between stricter
gun control laws and banning kitchen knives. However, this analogy is
weak because there are significant differences between firearms and
kitchen knives in terms of their purpose, potential for harm, and
regulation.
• Firearms are designed specifically for causing harm or self-defense, while
kitchen knives are primarily used for cooking and other non-violent
purposes. Furthermore, firearms are subject to extensive regulation and
background checks, unlike kitchen knives which are readily available for
purchase.
• The analogy fails to provide a relevant comparison between the two
entities and ignores the complexities associated with gun control.
Therefore, the argument based on this weak analogy does not provide a
strong justification for implementing stricter gun control laws.

46
 EXERCISE - 2
INSTRUCTION: Identify the fallacies of weak induction committed by the following
arguments, giving a brief explanation for your answer.
1. No one has ever been able to prove the existence of extrasensory perception.
We must therefore conclude that extrasensory perception is a myth.
2. Lester Brown, universally respected geographer has said that the destruction
of tropical rainforests is one of the ten most serious worldwide problems.
Thus, it must be the case that this is indeed a very serious problem.
3. A few minutes after Governor Smith finished his speech on television, a
devastating earthquake struck southern America. For the safety of the people
up there, it is imperative that Governor Smith make no more speeches.
4. The prohibition of assault weapons must be vigorously opposed. Once the
gun-grabbing security forces have outlawed assault weapons, next they ’ll go
after handguns. After that, it will be shotguns and semiautomatic hunting
rifles. In the end, law-abiding citizens will be left totally defenseless against
predatory criminals and a tyrannical government.
5. The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through a
pipe. When water runs downhill through a pipe, the pressure at the bottom of
the hill is greater than it is at the top. Thus, when electricity flows downhill
through a wire, the voltage should be greater at the bottom of the hill than at
the top.

47
 Fallacies of presumption
. Fallacies of presumption refer to arguments that rely
on assumptions that are usually not explicitly stated or
backed up with evidence.
. Fallacies of presumption are like whispers in the
dark, guiding the argument without ever
appearing in the light. Bringing them out into
the open exposes their lack of substance.
. The fallacies of presumption include:
– begging the question,
– complex question,
– false dichotomy, and
– suppressed evidence.

48
 Begging The Question / petitio principii
• The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer
creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for
the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, or by
restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion (reasoning in a circle).
Examples:
1. Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder because a state has a right
to put someone to death for having intentionally killed someone else. (In this
example, the arguer assumes the conclusion ("capital punishment is justified") by relying on a
potentially false or questionable premise ("a state has a right to put someone to death for
murder"). The argument assumes the legitimacy of capital punishment without providing
evidence or addressing counterarguments against it. It begs the question by using the
conclusion as a premise, making the argument circular.)
2 . “ Women have rights,” said the Bullfighters Association
president. “But women shouldn’ t fight bulls because a
bullfighter is and should beaman.” (the arguer assumes the conclusion
("women shouldn't fight bulls") by restating a potentially false or biased premise ("a bullfighter
is and should beaman") as the conclusion. The argument begs the question by assuming the
truth of the premise without providing any evidence or logical reasoning to support it. It fails to
address counterarguments or provide a sound basis for the conclusion, making it fallacious.
3. Murder is morally wrong . This being the case , then abortion
must also be morally wrong. (the arguer assumes the conclusion ("abortion must
be morally wrong") by relying on a premise ("murder is morally wrong") that may not be
universally accepted or uncontroversial.)

49
 Complex Question /loaded question
• The fallacy of a loaded question occurs when an arguer asks a question
that includes an unfair or unwarranted presupposition. A loaded question
is one that contains a biased or questionable assumption. This type of
argument is often intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging
something they may not want to admit. The fallacy of a complex question
is committed when a single question, which is essentially two or more
questions, is asked, and a single answer is then applied to both questions.

• Example : "Have you stopped beating your spouse?"

• In this example, the question is loaded because it assumes that the person
being asked has been beating their spouse. By phrasing the question in
this way, the arguer is trying to trap the respondent into admitting guilt
without providing any evidence or allowing for alternative explanations. It
puts the respondent in a difficult position because any answer they give
would be seen as an admission of guilt, even if they have never engaged in
such behavior. The question contains an unfair and unwarranted
presupposition, making it a clear example of the loaded question fallacy.

50
 False Dichotomy:
The fallacy of false dichotomy occurred when the argument attempts to
manipulate by creating the impression that there are only two choices
available, when in reality, there could be a broader range of options. By
framing the argument in this way, the arguer aims to steer the audience
towards a particular position by making it seem like the only viable or
reasonable choice.

This fallacy is also known by various names, including false dichotomy, false
binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the
either-or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of false choice, or
fallacy of the false alternative.

The false dichotomy fallacy follows this general structure:

Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (disregarding the possibility that both
X and Y could be false).
Claim Y is asserted to be false.
Therefore, claim X is concluded to be true.

51
 Everyday language includes many subtle false dichotomies:
1. "Do the ends justify the means?": This question creates a black-and-white
picture where achieving a good goal can only be done through bad means. It
ignores the possibility of finding less harmful or even beneficial ways to achieve
the same outcome. Sometimes, pursuing seemingly noble goals through
unethical means can actually undermine the intended good. It's crucial to
consider the full range of options and their consequences before making such
judgments.
2. "I had no choice": This statement often shuts down discussions about
responsibility and potential alternatives. While there may be constraints and
pressures, claiming complete helplessness absolves oneself of any agency or
creativity in finding other solutions. By exploring the many paths not taken, we
can learn from past mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future.
3. "Nature or nurture?": This classic debate creates a divide between genetics
and environment that simplifies the complex realities of human behavior. Both
factors play a role, often interwoven in intricate ways. Focusing solely on one or
the other overlooks the interplay between them and limits our understanding
of individual development and societal influences.
4. "You get what you pay for": This saying oversimplifies the complexities of
markets and consumer behavior. It disregards factors like quality variations,
hidden costs, and changing values. Breakthroughs in design, manufacturing,
and value discovery can disrupt traditional assumptions about price and value.
By acknowledging the dynamic nature of markets and consumer preferences,
we can make more informed choices about what we buy and why.

52
 Suppressed Evidence:
- The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when someone presents
evidence or an argument in support of their position but intentionally
omits or suppresses relevant evidence that could weaken or
contradict their conclusion. This fallacy is often observed in the
manipulation of statistics.
- When an arguer engages in suppressed evidence, they selectively
present information that supports their viewpoint while disregarding
or concealing evidence that might challenge or undermine their
stance. By withholding crucial evidence, they create a skewed or
incomplete picture of the issue at hand, leading to a distorted
understanding of the topic.
- Suppression of evidence is particularly misleading when it comes to
statistical data. By selectively presenting statistics that favor their
position and disregarding contradictory data, the arguer can create a
false impression of the statistical landscape, thereby misguiding
others and reinforcing their own viewpoint.
- It is important to recognize that suppressing evidence undermines
the integrity of the argument by withholding relevant information
that could influence the conclusion. A comprehensive and accurate
analysis should consider all pertinent evidence, even if it goes against
the arguer's position, in order to arrive at a more objective and
informed judgment.

53
 Advertising:
- A car company claims its model is the safest on the market, but only cites crash test results for
specific scenarios while ignoring others where it performed poorly.
- A weight loss supplement advertises "clinically proven results" based on a small, short-term
study, but fails to mention numerous studies that showed no significant effect.
Politics:
- A politician vendors job growth statistics during their term, but omits data on wage stagnation and
declining job quality.
- A candidate claims their opponent is corrupt based on a single, questionable allegation, while
ignoring the opponent's long record of ethical conduct.
Science :
- A researcher publishes a study supporting a controversial theory, but fails to disclose funding from a
biased organization with a vested interest in the outcome.
- A medical professional advocates for a certain treatment based on their personal experience, but
neglects to mention broader research that doesn't support its effectiveness.
Everyday Life:
- A friend argues that a particular restaurant is terrible based on one bad experience, but ignores the
numerous positive reviews and recommendations from others.
- A student argues they deserve a higher grade on a test, but only mentions the questions they
answered correctly, ignoring the ones they missed or answered poorly.
Note that:
- Suppressed evidence often involves cherry-picking data or selectively presenting information to
create a misleading impression.
- It can be intentional or unintentional, but the result is the same: a distorted view of reality.
- Critical thinking and a willingness to consider all available evidence are essential to avoid being
54 misled by this fallacy.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
. These fallacies arise from the occurrence of
some form of ambiguity in either the premises
or the conclusion (or both). An expression is
ambiguous if it is susceptible to different
interpretations in a given context.
. Includes
– Equivocation , and
– Amphiboly

55
 Equivocation
Equivocation is a logical fallacy that arises when an argument relies on the ambiguity
of a word or phrase, using it in two different senses to reach a faulty conclusion.
are two examples that illustrate the fallacy of equivocation:
Here

Example 1:
Premise 1: Some triangles are obtuse.
Premise 2: Whatever is obtuse is ignorant.
Conclusion: Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
In this example, the word "obtuse" is used with two different meanings. In the first
premise, it refers to a geometric property of triangles, meaning that some triangles
have angles greater than 90 degrees. However, in the second premise, "obtuse" is
used metaphorically to denote ignorance or lack of knowledge. The conclusion
wrongly assumes that the ignorance associated with being obtuse in the
metaphorical sense applies to triangles as well.

Example 2:
Premise 1: Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority.
Premise 2: But the law of gravity is a law.
Conclusion: Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
Here, the word "law" is used in two different senses. In the first premise, "law" refers
to any legal rule or regulation that can be repealed by the appropriate legislative
body. However, in the second premise, "law" refers to the natural law of gravity,
which describes the force of attraction between objects with mass. The conclusion
incorrectly assumes that the legislative authority has the power to repeal or
modify the law of gravity, which is not within their jurisdiction.
56
 Amphiboly
. The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when an arguer misinterprets an
ambiguous statement and draws a conclusion based on this faulty
interpretation. The ambiguity often arises from a dangling
modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, punctuation
mistake, or a careless arrangement of words. Here are three
examples that illustrate the fallacy of amphiboly:
. Example 1:
– Statement: The tour guide said that standing in Greenwich Village, the
Empire State Building could easily be seen.
– Faulty Conclusion: It follows that the Empire State Building is in
Greenwich Village.
. In this example, the statement is ambiguous due to the placement
of the modifier "standing in Greenwich Village." The tour guide's
intention was to convey that, from the vantage point of standing in
Greenwich Village, the Empire State Building is easily visible.
However, the faulty conclusion misinterprets the statement to
mean that the Empire State Building is physically located within
Greenwich Village.

57
 Example 2:
Statement: John told Henry that he had made a mistake.
Faulty Conclusion: It follows that John has at least the courage to admit
his own mistakes.
Here, the ambiguity arises from the pronoun "he" and its unclear
antecedent. The statement could be interpreted as John admitting his own
mistake or John informing Henry that Henry made a mistake. The faulty
conclusion assumes that John is admitting his own mistake, but this
interpretation is not necessarily true based solely on the given statement.
Example 3:
Statement: Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart
failure in the biology lecture hall.
Faulty Conclusion: It must be the case that a number of heart failures
have occurred there recently.
In this case, the ambiguity arises from the statement's structure and the
mistaken inference drawn from it. The statement indicates that Professor
Johnson will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology lecture hall.

However, the faulty conclusion assumes that the presence of heart failure as
58
a topic in the lecture implies that heart failures have recently occurred in
the biology lecture hall, which is an unwarranted leap of logic.
 . A dangling modifier is a grammatical error that occurs when a modifier
(usually a phrase or a clause) is placed in a sentence in such away that it does
not clearly and logically modify the intended word or phrase. As a result, the
modifier "dangles" without aclear connection to the element it is supposed
to modify, leading to confusion or ambiguity in the sentence's meaning.
. Here's an example to illustrate a dangling modifier:
– Dangling Modifier: Walking down the street, the trees appeared beautiful.
– Corrected: Walking down the street, I saw the beautiful trees.
. In this example, the phrase "walking down the street" is the dangling
modifier.
. The intended subject of the sentence is not stated, so it appears as if the trees
themselves are walking down the street, which is illogical. To correct the
sentence, we need to specify who is walking down the street (in this case, "I")
and then mention the trees as something observed by the subject.
. Dangling modifiers often occur when the subject of the main clause is missing
or is different from the subject implied by the modifier. To avoid this error, it's
important to ensure that the modifier is placed next to the word or phrase it
is intended to modify, making the intended relationship clear and
unambiguous.

59
 . An ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun refers to a situation in which it is unclear or
ambiguous which noun or noun phrase the pronoun is referring to. This ambiguity can
arise when there are multiple possible antecedents for the pronoun within the
context
of a sentence or paragraph. As a result, it becomes difficult to determine the exact
meaning or intended referent of the pronoun, leading to confusion or
misinterpretation.
. Here's an example to illustrate an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun:
– Ambiguous Antecedent: Sarah told Emily that she should bring a gift.
– Unclear Referent: It is unclear who should bring a gift.
. In this example, the pronoun "she" is used without a clear antecedent. It is not
specified whether "she" refers to Sarah or Emily. As a result, the meaning of the
sentence becomes ambiguous, and it is unclear who is being instructed to bring a
gift .
. To avoid an ambiguous antecedent, it is important to ensure that the pronoun clearly
refers to a specific noun or noun phrase. This can be achieved by rephrasing the
sentence to provide clarity or by explicitly specifying the antecedent in the sentence .
– Revised Example: Sarah told Emily that Emily should bring a gift.
. Clear Referent: The pronoun "she" is replaced with the proper noun "Emily," making it
. clear
By that Emily
clarifying is the one being
the antecedent of theinstructed
pronoun,to
webring a gift. the ambiguity and create a
eliminate
sentence with a clear and understandable meaning.

60
 Fallacies of grammatical analogy
. Arguments that commit these fallacies are
grammatically analogous 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.
. Includes
– Composition , and
– division

61
 Composition
• The fallacy of composition is committed when the
conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from the
parts of something onto the whole. 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 attribute too.

62
 . The label “fallacy of composition” applies to two similar types of invalid
inference. The first type is an invalid inference from the nature of the
parts to the nature of the whole.
– EXAMPLE: Each player on the footballteam is outstanding. Hence, the
team itself is outstanding

. Not all inferences from part to whole are invalid.

– EXAMPLE: Each part of the machine weighs more than one pound, and the
machine has five parts. Consequently, the machine itself weighs more than
one pound

. The second type of fallacy of composition is an invalid inference from

attributes of members of a group to attributes of the group itself.

– EXAMPLE: Elephants eat more than humans So, elephants taken as a group eat more than

.
humans [taken as a group].

63
 . Note that composition is sometimes confused with hasty generalization.
Composition is about making assumptions about the whole based on
.
its parts. It's like baking a cake and assuming it'll be sweet because the
ingredients are sweet individually.
. Hasty generalization is about making assumptions about all members of a
group based on limited evidence. It's like meeting one friendly person from a
country and assuming everyone from that country is friendly.
. Key differences:
– Focus: Composition focuses on the whole, while hasty generalization focuses on individual
members.
– Conclusion: Composition leads to a class statement (about the whole),while hasty
generalization leads to a general statement (about all members).
. Examples:
– Composition: "Every ingredient in this smoothie is healthy, so the entire smoothie must be
healthy." (Focus on the whole smoothie, class statement)
– Hasty generalization: "My friend tried a new diet and lost weight quickly, so it must work
for everyone." (Focus on individual experiences, general statement)

64
 General Statements
. Characteristics:
– Apply to every individual member of a class or group.
– Use distributive predication, meaning the attribute is assigned to each member separately.
. Examples:
– "All humans are mortal." (Every single human is mortal.)
– "Every dog has a tail." (Each individual dog, without exception, has a tail.)
– "No student can attend class without permission." (Each student, individually, needs permission.)
Class Statements
. Characteristics:
– Apply to a group or class as a whole, not necessarily to every individual member.
– Use collective predication, meaning the attribute is assigned to the group collectively.
. Examples:
– "The human race is diverse." (The group as a whole is diverse, even if some individuals share
traits.)
– "The team played well today." (The team collectively performed well, even if some players had off-days.)
– "The forest is teeming with life." (The forest as a whole is full of life, even if some specific areas are less
dense.)
. Key Differences:
– –
Focus: General statements emphasize distribute
individual the
members, while class member,
statements focus onstatements
the group as a whole. assign it to the group.
Predication: General statements attribute to each while class collectively
. Examples of the Difference:
– General statement: "Every student in this class is over 18 years old." (Each student, individually, is 18 or older.)
– Class statement: "This class is composed of adult learners." (The group as a whole consists of adults, but some individual members might be
younger.)
65
 Division

. the fallacy of division is assumes that just because

something is true for a whole group, it must be
true for every individual member of that group.
. Here are examples:
– The university has a high graduation rate, so every
student must be academically successful." - (This ignores
individual differences and factors that can affect individual
success.)
– This book is long and complex, so each sentence must
be difficult to understand.

66
 EXERCISE - 3
Instruction: Identify the fallacies of presumption, ambiguity, and
grammatical analogy committed by the following arguments, giving a
brief explanation for your answer. If no fallacy is committed, write ‘‘ no
fallacy.’
1. The sign said 'Fine for parking here,'so I thought it was okay to
park. But when I returned, I had received a parking ticket. They
tricked me!.
2. You're either for unrestricted free speech or against freedom
altogether. If you support any limitations on speech, you're
undermining the foundation of our democracy.
3. Using a smartphone to communicate is similar to sending letters
by mail. Both involve written messages. Therefore, smartphones
are just a modern version of traditional mail.
4. I met two rude tourists from that country, so everyone from that
country must be rude.
5. This team has star players in every position, so they'll definitely
win the championship.

67
 References - Books
1. "A Rulebook for Arguments" by Anthony Weston: This book is highly regarded as
a concise and accessible guide to understanding and constructing arguments. It
covers a wide range of fallacies and provides clear explanations and examples .
2. "Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic" by Walter Sinnott-
Armstrong and Robert J. Fogelin: This book offers a comprehensive introduction
to informal logic and covers various types of fallacies in-depth. It provides a solid
foundation for understanding and evaluating arguments.
3. "Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction" by Gregory Bassham, William Irwin,
Henry Nardone, and James Wallace: This book focuses on critical thinking skills
and includes asection on fallacies. It offers practical guidance and exercises to
enhance critical thinking abilities.
4. "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life" by
Howard Kahane and Nancy Cavender: This book explores the relationship
between logic and rhetoric and provides a thorough examination of fallacies. It
emphasizes the application of logic in real-world situations.
5. "Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach" by Douglas Walton: This book takes a
pragmatic approach to informal logic and covers a wide range of fallacies. It offers
insights into how fallacious reasoning can be identified and effectively countered.

68
 References - websites
1. Logical Fallacies: This website (logicalfallacies.org) provides a comprehensive list
of logical fallacies with explanations and examples. It categorizes fallacies based
on their types, making it easy to understand the different categories.
2. Your Logical Fallacy Is: This website (yourlogicalfallacyis.com) offers a visual and
interactive approach to understanding fallacies. It presents a collection of
common fallacies and provides concise descriptions and examples for each one .
3. Fallacy Files: The Fallacy Files (fallacyfiles.org) is a valuable resource that provides
an extensive collection of fallacies, including both formal and informal fallacies. It
offers detailed explanations and examples to help students recognize and analyze
fallacious reasoning.
4. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(iep.utm.edu) is a reliable online resource that covers a wide range of
philosophical topics, including fallacies. It provides articles written by experts in
the field, offering in-depth analysis and insights into different types of fallacies .
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(plato.stanford.edu) is another reputable online resource that offers high-quality
articles on various philosophical topics. It includes articles on different types of
fallacies, providing a scholarly and comprehensive perspective.

69