Fallacy

DURATION

8 Hours

OBJECTIVES

a) Distinguish the different categories of fallacy

b) Analyze statements that contain different kinds of fallacy.
c) Differentiate the types of fallacy.
d) Explain and illustrate the most common type of fallacy in ordinary language.

READINGS AND VIDEOS (Please see the digital copies of the materials.)

Reading 6.1 Copi, I., Cohen, C & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logic Fourteenth Edition.
London: Pearson Education Limited
Reading 6.2 Van Cleave, M. (2016). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Retrieved from
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/introduction-to-logic-andcritical-
thinking
Reading 6.3 Gensler, H. (2010).Introduction to Logic Second Edition. New York: Routledge

Video 6.1 Introduction to Fallacies in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M39XcakMDqw

Video 6.2 Fallacy Detective in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od2cpE7YMSQ
Video 6.3 Top 10 Fallacies in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawIjqOJBU8 Video
6.4 31 Logical in 8 Minutes in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf03U04rqGQ

Source: Introduction to Logic

Irving Copi
Carl Cohen
Kenneth McMahon
14th edition

6.0 Fallacy

6.1. Informal Fallacy

One reasons incorrectly when the premises of an argument fail to support its conclusion, and
arguments of that sort may be called fallacious. So ina very general sense, any error in reasoning
is a fallacy. Similarly, any mistakenidea or false belief may sometimes be labeled
“fallacious.”
A formal fallacy is a pattern of mistake that appears in deductive arguments of a certain
specifiable form. There are other formal fallacies. Most fallacies, however, are not formal
butinformal: They are patterns of mistake that are made in the everyday uses of language.
Informal fallacies, arise from confusions concerning the content of the language used. There is
no limit to the variety of forms in which that content may appear, and thus informalfallacies are
often more difficult to detect than formal ones. It is language that deceives us here; we may be
tricked by inferences that seem plausible on the surface but that are in reality not warranted.

6.2 Informal fallacies are numerous and can therefore be best understood if they are grouped
into categories, each with clearly identifiable features. This classification of fallacies is a
controversial matter in logic. There is no one correct taxonomy of fallacies. Logicians have
proposed lists of fallacies that vary greatly in length; different sets have been specified, and
different names have been given toboth the sets and the individual fallacies. Any classification of
the kind that willfollow here is bound to be arbitrary in some degree. Our aim is to provide a
comprehensive scheme within which the most common informal fallacies can be helpfully
identified—and avoided.

II.The outline of this classification and description of each fallacy appears immediately
below.
.

6.2.1 FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

Fallacies of relevance are the most numerous and the most frequently encountered. In these
fallacies, the premises of the argument are simply not relevant to the conclusion. However,
because they are made to appear to be relevant, they may deceive. We will distinguish and
discuss:

• R1: The appeal to the populace

This fallacy is sometimes defined as the fallacy committed in making an emotional appeal; but
this definition is so broad as to include most of the fallacies of relevance. It is defined more
narrowly as the attempt to win popular assent to aconclusion by arousing the feelings of the
multitude. The argument ad populum (“to the populace”) is the baldest of all fallacies, and yet
it is one of the mostcommon. It is the instrument on which every demagogue and propagandist
relieswhen faced with the task of mobilizing public sentiment. It is a fallacy because, instead of
evidence and rational argument, the speaker (or writer) relieson expressive language and other
devices calculated to excite enthusiasm for or against some cause.

Example: Sixteen Million people voted for this president, that makes him the best president.

• R2: The appeal to emotion

One variety of the appeal to emotion that appears with great frequency is the argument ad
misericordiam. The Latin word misericordiam literally means “merciful heart”; this fallacy is the
emotional appeal to pity.

Example: “Please give me a passing grade, my old poor parents are expecting me to graduate
this year!”

Logicians give special names to other clusters of fallacious emotional appeals.Thus one might
also distinguish the appeal to envy (ad invidiam), the appeal to fear (ad metum), the appeal to
hatred (ad odium), and the appeal to pride (ad superbium). In all of these, the underlying mistake
is the argument’s reliance on feelings as premises.

• R3: The red herring

The red herring is a fallacious argument whose effectiveness lies in distraction. Attention is
deflected; readers or listeners are drawn to some aspect of the topic under discussion by which
they are led away from the issue that had been the focus of the discussion. They are urged to
attend to some observation or some claim that may be associated with the topic, but that is not
relevant to the truth of what had originally been in dispute. A red herring has been drawn across
the track.

In the world of finance, a prospectus issued to attract investors in a company about to go public,
which tells much about the company but not the price of its shares, is also called a red herring.

• R4: The straw man

It is very much easier to win a fight against a person made of straw than against one made of
flesh and blood. If one argues against some view by presenting an opponent’s position as one
that is easily torn apart, the argument is fallacious, of course. Such an argument commits the
fallacy of the straw man.

One may view this fallacy as a variety of the red herring, because it also introduces a distraction
from the real dispute. In this case, however, the distractionis of a particular kind: It is an effort to
shift the conflict from its original complexity into a different conflict, between parties other than
those originally in dispute. So common is this variety of distraction that the pattern of argument
that relies on it has long carried its own name: the straw man argument.

Example: You are you against death penalty? So, you think that the lives of murderers and
criminals are more important than the lives of their innocent victims?

• R5: The attack on the person

The phrase ad hominem translates as “against the person.” An ad hominem argument is one in
which the thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at some person who defends the conclusion
in dispute. An important qualification is called for at this point. Ad hominem arguments are
fallacious (and often unfair to the adversary) because an attack against some person is generally
not relevant to the objective merits of the argument that person has put forward. This
personalized attack might be conducted in either of two different ways, for which reason we
distinguish two major forms of the argument ad hominem: the abusive and the circumstantial

• Abusive
One is tempted, in heated argument, to disparage the character of one’s opponents,
to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to question their understanding, or
their seriousness, or even their integrity. However, the character of an adversary
is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what that person asserts, or to the
correctness of the reasoning employed.
 Example: Of course it will be hard for you to understand why college education
matters? You always got the lowest score in our class!

• Circumstantial
The circumstances of one who makes (or rejects) some claim have no more bearing
on the truth of what is claimed than does his character. The mistake made in the
circumstantial form of the ad hominem fallacy is to treat those personal
circumstances as the premise of an opposing argument.

Example: Oh for sure she is in favor of the anti-terror bill! She cannot be a good
senator; she’s her father’s daughter!

• R6: The appeal to force

It seems odd to suppose that one could hope to establish some proposition as true, or persuade
some other person of its truth, by resorting to force. Threats or strong-arm methods to coerce
one’s opponents can hardly be considered arguments at all. Traditionally, a category of fallacies
of this kind has been identified as the appeal to force or the argument ad baculum (appeal ad
baculum means literally “appeal to the stick”!), and it surely is clear that however expedient force
may prove to be, it cannot replace rational methods of argument. “Might makes right” is not a
subtle principle, and we all reject it.

Example: You are not force to follow this rule, but one must be prepared to face the consequence
though.

• R7: Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion)

Aristotle, the first to give a systematic classification of the informal fallacies, explains the fallacy
we call missing the point, or ignoratio elenchi, as a mistake that is made in seeking to refute
another’s argument. The Latin word elenchi is derived from a Greek word that means a “disproof,”
or a “refutation.” An ignoratio elenchi is a mistaken refutation, one that goes haywire because the
person presenting it does not fully understand the proposition in dispute. He refutes, or tries to
refute, a claim other than that which was originally at issue. He misses the point.

Example: Somebody asked about the missing funds in an agency and you reply by pointing out
how employees enjoyed the perks and bonuses that they receive

6.2.2 FALLACIES OF DEFECTIVE INDUCTION.

In fallacies of defective induction, which are also common, the mistake arises from the fact that
the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective
that relying on them is a blunder. We will distinguish and discuss:

• D1: The argument from ignorance

Someone commits the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam if he or she argues that something is
true because it has not been proved false, or false because it has not been proved true. Just
because some proposition has not yet been proved false,we are not entitled to conclude that it
is true. The same point can be made in reverse: If some proposition has not yet been proved
true, we are not entitled to conclude that it is false. Many true propositions have not yet been
proved true, of course, just as many false propositions have not yet been proved false. The fact
that we cannot now be confident rarely serves as a good reason to assert knowledge of falsity,
or of truth. Such an inference is defective; the fallacy is called the argument from ignorance, or
the argument ad ignorantiam. Ignorance sometimes obliges us to suspend judgment, assigning
neither truth nor falsity to the proposition in doubt.

Example: There is no need for digitization; our generation has survived on logbooks and
typewriters.

• D2: The appeal to inappropriate authority

The fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties
who have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. Thus, in an argument about
morality, an appeal to the opinions of Darwin, a towering authority in biology, would be fallacious,
as would be an appeal to the opinions of a great artist such as Picasso to settle an economic
dispute. Care must be taken in determining whose authority it is reasonable to rely on, and whose
to reject. Although Picasso was not an economist, his judgment might plausibly be given some
weight in a dispute pertaining to the economic value of an artistic masterpiece; and if the role of
biology in moral questions were in dispute, Darwin might indeed be an appropriate authority. This
is not to say that an authority in one field might not be correct when speaking outside his or her
area of expertise—to allege that would constitute a species of argumentum ad hominem
circumstantial. In every instance, an argument must be judged upon its own merits.

Example: According to the governor suob is the best cure for Covid-19, so, it must be true.

• D3: False cause

It is obvious that any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of something or event what
is not really its cause must be seriously mistaken. Often we are tempted to suppose, or led to
suppose, that we understand some specific cause and effect relation when in fact we do not. The
nature of the connection between cause and effect, and how we determine whether such a
connection is present, are central problems of inductive logic and scientific method. Presuming
the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist is a common mistake; inLatin the
mistake is called the fallacy of non causa pro causa; we call it simply the fallacy of false cause.

Example: My business prospers, thanks to the money tree necklace that you gave me!

• D4: Hasty generalization

Throughout our lives, we rely on statements about how things generally are and how people
generally behave. Nonetheless, general claims, although critical in reasoning, must be carefully
scrutinized: The universality of their application ought never be accepted or assumed without
justification. Hasty generalization is the fallacy we commit when we draw conclusions about all
the persons or things in a given class on the basis of our knowledge about only one (or only a
very few) of the members of that class.

Example: I was in the supermarket yesterday and I saw some shoppers, who are not wearing
facemasks, ahh! Filipinos are hardheaded! We have to blame them for rising Covid -19 cases.

6.2.3 FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION

In fallacies of presumption, too much is assumed in the premises. The inference to the conclusion
depends mistakenly on theseunwarranted assumptions. We will distinguish and discuss:

• P1: Accident

Circumstances alter cases. A generalization that is largely true may not apply in a given case
(or to some subcategory of cases) for good reasons. The reasons the generalization does not
apply in those cases have to do with the special circumstances, also called the “accidental”
circumstances, of that case or those cases. If these accidental circumstances are ignored, and
we assume that the generalization applies universally, we commit the fallacy of accident.

Example: One may believe that silence speak volumes, but if you are a lawmaker you cannot
claim that you do not speak that much because of that belief.

• P2: Complex question

One of the most common fallacies of presumption is to ask a question in such a way as to
presuppose the truth of some conclusion that is buried in the question. The question itself is likely
to be rhetorical, with no answer actually being sought. But putting the question seriously, thereby
introducing its presupposition surreptitiously, often achieves the questioner’s purpose fallaciously

Example: Why is student X better than student Y?

• P3: Begging the question

The fallacy called begging the question is widely misunderstood, partly because its name is
misleading. It is the mistake of assuming the truth of what one seeks to prove. The “question” in
a formal debate is the issue that is in dispute; to “beg” the question is to ask, or to suppose, that
the very matter in controversy be conceded. This is an argument with no merit at all, of course,
and one who makes such an assumption commits a gross fallacy.

Example: To be well known one must be famous, to be famous one must be well known.

6.2.4 FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

The incorrect reasoning in fallacies of ambiguity arises from the equivocal use of words or
phrases. Some word or phrase in one part of the argument has a meaning different from that of
the same word or phrase in another part of the argument. We will distinguish and discuss:
• A1: Equivocation

Most words have more than one literal meaning, and most of the time we have no difficulty
keeping those meanings separate by noting the context and using our good sense when reading
and listening. Yet when we confuse the several meanings of a word or phrase— accidentally or
deliberately—we are using the word equivocally. If we do that in the context of an argument, we
commit the fallacy of equivocation.

Example: Ana went window shopping yesterday, when she came home not a window in sight.

• A2: Amphiboly

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when one is arguing from premises whose formulations are
ambiguous because of their grammatical construction. The word “amphiboly” is derived from the
Greek, its meaning in essence being “two in a lump,” or the “doubleness” of a lump. A statement
is amphibolous when its meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way in which
its words are combined. An amphibolous statement may be true in one interpreon and false in
another. When it is stated as premise with the interpretation that makes it true, and a conclusion
is drawn from it on the interpretation that makes it false, then the fallacy of amphiboly has been
committed.

Example:

Ladies, don’t forget the rummage sale. It’s a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping
around the house. Bring your husbands.
- Grammarbook.com

• A3: Accent
We have seen that shifting the meaning of some term in an argument may result in a fallacy of
ambiguity. Most commonly that shift is an equivocation, as noted earlier. Sometimes, however,
the shift is the result of a change in emphasis on a single word or phrase, whose meaning does
not change. When the premise of an argument relies on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion
drawn from it relies on the meaning of the same words emphasized differently, the fallacy of
accent has been committed.

Example: Some advertisements that give emphasis on some words in order to entice customers.
SALE ALERT! Up to 50% 0ff on selected items.

• A4: Composition

The term fallacy of composition is applied to both of two closely related types of mistaken
argument. The first may be described as reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of
a whole to the attributes of the whole itself. A flagrant example is to argue that, because every
part of a certain machine is light in weight, the machine “as a whole” is light in weight. The error
here is manifest when we recognize that a very heavy machine may consist of a very large
number of lightweight parts. Not all examples of fallacious composition are so obvious, however.
Some are misleading. One may hear it seriously argued that, because each scene of a certain
play is a model of artistic perfection, the play as a whole is artistically perfect. This is as much a
fallacy of composition as to argue that, because every ship is ready for battle, the whole fleet
must be ready for battle.

• A5: Division

The fallacy of division is simply the reverse of the fallacy of composition. In it the same
confusion is present, but the inference proceeds in the opposite direction. As in the case of
composition, two varieties of the fallacy of division may be distinguished. The first kind of division
consists of arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. To argue
that, because a certain corporation is very important and Mr. Doe is an official of that corporation,
therefore Mr. Doe is very important, is to commit the fallacy of division. This first variety of the
division fallacy is committed in any such argument, as in moving from the premise that a certain
machine is heavy, or complicated, or valuable, to the conclusion that this or any other part of the
machine must be heavy, or complicated, or valuable. To argue that a student must have a large
room because the room is located in a large dormitory would be still another instance of the first
kind of fallacy of division.

The second type of division fallacy is committed when one argues from the attributes of a
collection of elements to the attributes of the elements themselves. To argue that, because
university students study medicine, law, engineering, dentistry, and architecture, therefore each,
or even any, university student studies medicine, law, engineering, dentistry, and architecture is
to commit the second kind of division fallacy. It is true that university students, collectively, study
all these various subjects, but it is false that university students, distributively, do so. Instances
of this fallacy of division often look like valid arguments, for what is true of a class distributively
is certainly true of each and every member. Thus the argument,

Dogs are carnivorous.

Afghan hounds are dogs.
Therefore Afghan hounds are carnivorous. is
perfectly valid.
Closely resembling this argument is another, Dogs
are frequently encountered in the streets.
Afghan hounds are dogs.
Therefore Afghan hounds are frequently encountered in the streets.