CONQUER LOGICAL FALLACIES

28 NUGGETS OF KNOWLEDGE TO NURTURE YOUR

REASONING SKILLS

THINKNETIC
Did You Know That 93% Of CEOs Agree That This Skill Is More Important Than Your
College Degree?

Here's just a fraction of what you'll discover inside:

How to shortcut the famous Malcom Gladwell "10,000 Hours Rule" to become an expert
critical thinker, fast
What a WW2 pilot and the people of Romania can teach you about critical thinking - this
is the KEY to not making huge mistakes
Actionable, easy exercises to drill home every point covered in the novel. You won't
"read and forget" this book
Our educational system simply doesn't teach us how to think...
...and it's unlikely this is information you've ever learned anywhere else - until now.

A glimpse into what you'll discover inside:

If your thinking is flawed and what it takes to fix it (the solutions are included)
Tried and true hacks to elevate your rationality and change your life for the better
Enlightening principles to guide your thoughts and actions (gathered from the wisest men
of all time)

(Or go to thinknetic.net or simply scan the code with your camera)

 CONTENTS

Introduction

1. To Understand Reasoning Is To First Understand Logic

2. Reason Through Arguments
3. The Culprit Of Bad Reasoning: Our Logical Errors And Biases
4. Demystifying The So-Called Formal Logical Errors
5. The Informal Logical Errors We Experience Everyday
6. Making The Change: How Can We Become Rational Thinkers?

Afterword
One Final Word From Us
Continuing Your Journey
References
Disclaimer
 INTRODUCTION

Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the
strength of their argument. The heated mind resents the chill
touch and relentless scrutiny of logic.
—W E. G

A young man and a beautiful maiden fell in love with each other, but, alas,
she was a princess and he, a commoner. The king heard of this affair and,
livid with rage, had the man captured and brought before him.
“You have committed an unforgivable crime and shall be executed,” said
the king. “But because I am a righteous and merciful king, I will allow you
one kindness, and that is to choose the manner of your death. You are to
make one statement. If you tell the truth, you shall be sent to the gallows to
die by hanging. If you tell a lie, you will be burned at the stake. Go ahead,
then. Make your statement.”
The young man thought briefly, then said: “I will be burned at the stake.”
The king, hearing this, thought deeply, then set the man free.
Many of you readers by now will have a feeling of déjà vu. Of course, you
had already heard this story or some variation of it sometime before. It is a
version of the liar’s paradox. In the story above, the young man was
released by the king because his statement put the king in a quandary. If his
statement was ruled a lie, he would be burned at the stake, turning his
statement into the truth. But if it were the truth and he was sent to the
gallows, he would have told a lie because he said he would be burned at the
stake. Therefore, the righteous king, therefore, had to let him go or risk
putting a man to death against the terms of his own proclamation.
The liar’s paradox is a popular logical puzzle, but many who have already
heard it before are again confused upon hearing it again. They could not
recall the answer to this familiar story, because they would have forgotten
the logical connections made before. Why? Because our human nature
makes us forget what we have learned if we learned the lesson only once.
Learning does not take hold if we fail to address the lesson again and to
practice it repeatedly, frequently, and in different contexts.
You may be reading this book because you were intrigued by its reference
to “Our Irrational Side.” We are rational beings and make decisions
consistent with reason and logic, but we often find ourselves caught in the
repercussions of irrational actions and decisions.
- Students will forego preparing for an examination knowing full well the
consequence is a failing grade. Still, they convince themselves with the
fallacy that they could still pass the test by cramming or cheating.
- Employers know the opportunity cost in turning away potentially
outstanding applicants because of a first impression bias, yet they repeat the
habit.
- Consumers make purchases that they had no intention of making because
they were swayed by celebrities and influencers posing as authorities. All of
us have been there and had subsequently experienced buyers’ remorse.
It is not easy to constantly think and act logically. We are the product of
different cultures, experiences, educational backgrounds, and upbringing.
We are each equipped with different sets of values and beliefs that combine
our upbringing and social environment. Yet, logic is objective, scientific,
coldly discerning. Sound reasoning often leads to one solution, the right
solution.
Sound reasoning has its benefits. A right-thinking student will hit the books
before an exam. Employers will recruit the best applicants based on merit
after careful deliberation. And consumers will realize that models, actors,
and television personalities cannot replace real engineers, physicians, and
similar experts.
This book aims to help everyday people make sound everyday decisions. It
discusses:

Why people repeatedly make logical mistakes.

What logical principles and tools can help us reason better.
What formal and informal logical fallacies we frequently
encounter, and how we can address them.
What biases we are most prone to have, and how we can minimize
them.
What steps we can take to think logically as a habit.

The book provides a pragmatic description of the fundamental logical

concepts and the most frequently encountered fallacies and biases that
impact our daily decisions.
The author has a doctorate and has taught in college and graduate school for
40 years. Outside the academe, she has had field experience in business
management, engineering, law, finance, and marketing. She has been
married for 35 years and has raised three children, now professionals in
their own right. Her wealth of experience and academic foundation enable
this book’s grounded approach through straightforward explanations and
everyday examples.
This book is designed for the average readers who want to apply logic to
their everyday lives, to tame “the heated mind” enough to relish “the chill
touch and relentless scrutiny of logic.” It is a journey towards mastering the
skill of sound reasoning.
Are you ready to take the journey with us?
 1

TO UNDERSTAND REASONING IS TO FIRST

UNDERSTAND LOGIC

A man walks into a bar and says to his favorite bartender. “Jim, give
me a stiff one. I can’t stand going home to my wife this early. All
she does is nag, nag, nag without making any sense, and I can’t
get a word in.”
Jim says, “Bob, Letty’s just bored. I got my Emma to attend evening classes
on embroidery, and now she’s too busy with her cross-stitching to get on
my case.” Bob thought that was a great idea.
One month later, Bob walks in and says, “Jim, this is the last time I’m
listening to you. I took your advice and encouraged Letty to attend
community college. She enrolled in a course on introductory logic. Now she
still nags at me, and I still can’t get a word in. She’s making too much
sense!”
Bob’s experience shines a light on the best reason one can have to study
logic: to persuade others with our reasoning. Reasoning is a journey of the
mind. Humans are rational beings. Therefore, we all reason. We all perceive
the same things in our environment, yet we interpret them in different ways.
Some interpretations make more sense than others, depending on the way
we reason.
Logic is simply the process of making sense. It is the science of correct
reasoning, and some would call it a discipline of the mind [1]. Some of us
reason more logically than others because we can make sound inferences
from the evidence we have. With study, observation, and practice, we can
acquire that mental discipline to use logic to persuade and convince others
effectively.

The Four Laws Of Logic

There are three classical laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of
excluded middle, and the law of noncontradiction. In 1818, the German
philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer introduced the fourth law, the law of
sufficient reason.
The law of identity: Everything that is, exists.
The law explains that everything is identical to itself. A term used in logical
discourse can refer to one and only one thing. When a term means more
than one thing within the same discussion, the violation introduces a fallacy
known as equivocation.
An example of equivocation is: “Jack eats what is right, and Jill eats what is
left.” Right means “correct” in the first half of the sentence and is implied
to mean a direction in the second half. Similarly, left has a double meaning,
the direction opposite to right, and the “remainder” (leftover).
The law of excluded middle: Each and every thing either is or is not.
A proposition is either true or not true. If there are two contradictory
propositions, either the first is true and the second not true, or the second is
true, and the first is not true. “Arthur is a faithful husband,” and “Arthur had
an affair while he was married.” Having an affair is the definition of being
unfaithful. Therefore, either it is true that Arthur is faithful and the affair
did not happen, or Arthur had an extramarital affair, negating his
faithfulness to his wife.
The law of non-contradiction: Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
Contradictory propositions cannot be true at the same time and in the same
sense. This is similar to the law of identity. A German shepherd cannot be a
Yorkshire terrier nor a Shih-tzu (i.e., non-German shepherd). A high-rise
building cannot be a bungalow (i.e., a non-high rise). But care must be
taken to ensure that the propositions are truly mutually exclusionary.
Benjamin Franklin is a statesman, but he is also a scientist. A scientist is not
necessarily a non-statesman because being a statesman does not exclude
being a scientist, and vice-versa. When two propositions can co-exist, they
are not contradictory and do not violate the law of non-contradiction.
The law of sufficient reason: Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.
Of the four logical principles, this is the most controversial. It is also the
most complicated, so that we will explain it with an example. Suppose Joe
wanted to buy a motorcycle to get around in. A man he hardly knew
approached him and said that a friend of his brother-in-law’s officemate
mentioned Joe’s interest. The stranger will sell Joe his brand-new
motorcycle for $500 if Joe makes payment in three hours.
Joe immediately jumps at the offer and says, “It’s a deal!” But as a logical
person, your first thought would be, “Why?” This is the gist of the fourth
law. For every unexplained fact, a rational mind will seek the reason behind
it. Just any reason will not do; it must be sufficient. In the example, the
explanation must answer questions like: Why did the stranger want to sell it
so quickly? Why at such a low price? What might be wrong with the unit?
Was it contraband? Was it stolen? How did the stranger even know Joe?

Concepts Important In Logic

An appreciation of logic requires an understanding of the following
concepts.
Claim – Also known as a statement or proposition, a claim asserts the truth
or existence of something, whether true or false. When one or two premises
support a claim, it becomes a conclusion.
A simple claim is an unsupported statement.

The winner of the Miss Universe beauty contest is the most

beautiful woman in the universe.

A supported statement becomes a conclusion.

 All the known women in the universe are those who live on Earth.
All of these women competed in the Miss Universe pageant.
Therefore, the winner of the Miss Universe beauty pageant is the
most beautiful woman in the universe.

Inference – Inference refers to drawing conclusions from a set of

information or premises and moving towards their logical consequence
according to one of the recognized forms of reasoning.
The following is an example of drawing an inference through deductive
reasoning.

You asked me where I was last night, what I was doing, and who I
was with. I infer from your line of questioning that you consider
me a suspect.

Argument - An argument is a claim used to persuade or convince people

regarding the truth about an issue. It has three basic elements – an issue, a
premise (or premises), and a conclusion (or conclusions) [2].
While proponents use arguments to convince others, not all arguments are
validly structured, and not all premises and conclusions are true. Critical
thinking is required to recognize and construct a valid and sound argument,
such as the following.

Issue: How is gold traded?

Premise 1: All precious metals are traded in the international
exchanges.
Premise 2: Gold is a precious metal.
Conclusion: Gold is traded in the international exchanges.

Two elements necessary in reaching sound, logical conclusions are truth

and honesty in reasoning. This is not easy to achieve because we tend to
cloud our judgments with bias, misconceptions, and a lack of sincerity to
seek out the truth. Even with the best intentions, it is sometimes difficult to
dissect between truth and falsity, or honesty and insincerity, even in one’s
mind.
Action Steps
Try the following exercise in critical thinking, devised by Ransom
Patterson, editor-in-chief of College Info Geek [3].
(1) Ask basic questions. Many insignificant issues may confound a
problem. The first step is to eliminate the irrelevant matters that complicate
the issues. Identify the basic issue and focus on its solution.
(2) Question basic assumptions. Assumptions are things people accept as
true even without proof. Under closer scrutiny, some assumptions may be
proven false or inapplicable. Learn to identify them and weigh their
relevance to the problem.
(3) Be aware of your mental processes. Human thought happens at such
speed that the brain sometimes makes mental shortcuts (heuristics) to make
sense of our surroundings. Cognitive biases and personal prejudices
sometimes hijack our thinking process, so it is important to guard against
them.
(4) Try reversing things. A new perspective may emerge if one reverses
what appears to be true at first. The bus may have hit the pedestrian, but the
pedestrian may have intentionally stepped in front of the bus. The idea is to
test the possibility of more than one explanation.
(5) Evaluate the existing evidence. Try to find corroboration from other
sources. Exhaust all possible evidence, and the conclusion that reconciles
all of them is the right conclusion. If the evidence conclusively eliminates
alternatives, then the remaining alternative is the right conclusion.
These five mental exercises may seem easy, but making them a habit will
take time, patience, and practice. Developing the inclination to think
critically is the first step to using logic effectively. The next step is to
structure those thoughts precisely to deliver your message convincingly.

Moving On
This brief overview of logic barely scratches the surface of this most
interesting topic, but it is certainly enough to give Bob goosebumps
thinking about getting into an argument with his wife. Mastery of logic is a
powerful weapon for winning arguments, but more so for making sound
decisions. Bob would consider it a boon to study logic like Letty. And so
would you. Let’s forge on to the reasoning through arguments in the next
chapter.

Key Takeaways

The four laws of logic are the laws of identity, excluded middle,
non-contradiction and sufficient reason.
A claim asserts the truth of something.
Inference is drawing conclusions from premises.
An argument is a claim supported by proof
 2

REASON THROUGH ARGUMENTS

C harles, my youngest child, had a fondness for the Marvel superhero

Iron Man and his alter-ego, Tony Stark. I did not know how much
credibility he attributed to the comic book character until after
watching the Avengers movie. In the movie, Thor hit Iron Man with a super
bolt of lightning. This gave him enough energy to hit the God of Thunder
back with “400% capacity” of the Iron Man suit. 400%? As an electronics
engineer, I thought this was ridiculous. “Charlie,” I said, “400% power
capacity would have fried those circuits and melted his suit to a crisp.”
My little boy looked at me with incredulity. “Mom, Tony Stark said so. It
must be true!”
I told my husband about this exchange, saying, “My son believes a fictional
character more than me!” My husband, a mechanical engineer, calmly
replied, “Like somebody who didn’t believe me when I said her car
couldn’t run on ethanol without undergoing conversion, just because her
favorite Hollywood star said it could. Remember how that turned out?”
Touché, I thought. Robert Downey Jr.’s script claiming a technical
impossibility is as reliable as a celluloid celebrity’s advocacy concerning
my car’s appropriate fuel. The similarity in our thinking boils down to the
same argument.

First premise: Everything A says is true.

Second premise: A made a statement.
 Conclusion: The statement must be true.

The argument would make sense assuming both premises were true. It is a
valid argument. But the first premise turned out to be false. Thus, the
reasoning was not sound, and the conclusion was false, too.

Reasoning And Argumentation

Arguments aim to convince or persuade. An argument lays down a claim
and supports it with reasons. We also discussed reasoning as something all
people do and logical reasoning, which not all people do. Logical reasoning
is a systematic process. The structured expression of logical reasoning is
what is called argumentation. Scholars often refer to arguments as “the
language of logic.”
Reasoning is different from argumentation; the first is the thought process,
the second is how the thought process is expressed under logical principles.
Argumentation expresses in a structured set of statements the reasons
supporting a claim. Arguments have two elements: one or more premises
and a conclusion.
All arguments include reasoning, but not all reasoning is argumentative.
Some reasons are merely informative. Reasons intended for argumentation
are those that aim to strengthen or weaken the acceptability of a certain
claim. The probative goal is what distinguishes an argument from other
forms of statements [4].
For an argument to be convincing, it is not enough for the conclusions and
premises to be true. The premises should also provide compelling reasons
to accept the conclusion. The grounds provided by the premises should be
well-connected to the conclusion. How the argument lays out its premises
and conclusion traces the logical reasoning that our minds journey through.

A man’s home is his castle. (True)

The king lives in a castle. (True)
The king is a man. (True)
In the above example, there are two premises and a conclusion. The
premises are true, as well as the conclusion, and there is nothing inherently
wrong with each statement. However, the premises do not convincingly
lead to the conclusion – the conclusion stands as true even without the
premises. The argument is not compelling because it fails to make a strong
logical link between the premises and the conclusion.

Validity And Soundness

The validity of an argument is completely determined only by its structure,
not its content. An argument may be valid even if it is not sound. An
argument is valid if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises
to be true, but the conclusion is false. Take the following argument:

People born in 1990 are called millennials. (true)

George Washington was born in 1990. (false)
Therefore, George Washington is a millennial. (false)

If the preceding false premise is corrected and the structure is maintained,

we have:

People born in 1990 are called millennials. (true)

Emma Watson was born in 1990. (true)
Therefore, Emma Watson is a millennial. (true)

It is possible for a valid argument to have a false conclusion as long as at

least one premise is false [5].
The distinction between validity and soundness can be complicated but
intriguing. Let’s go through them with some examples.
(1)In a valid argument, when all the premises are true, the conclusion is
always true.

All cats are mammals. (true)

Lions are cats. (true)
 Therefore, lions are mammals. (true)

(2)Even if a premise is false, the conclusion can still be true and the
argument is valid but unsound.

Whales live in the ocean. (true)

Hammerhead sharks are whales. (false)
Therefore, hammerhead sharks live in the ocean. (true)

To test this argument’s validity, let us change the second premise to make it
true while retaining the argument’s structure. So, it becomes:

Whales live in the ocean. (true)

Dolphins are whales. (true)
Therefore, dolphins live in the ocean. (true)

Following the same structure, another argument with true premises can be:

Professional ballet dancers are graceful and poised. (true)

Olga Smirnova is a professional ballet dancer. (true)
Olga Smirnova is graceful and poised. (true)

This is, therefore, a valid and sound argument.

(3)Likewise, even when both premises are true, the conclusion can still be
false, leading to an invalid argument.

Surfing is popular with tourists in Australia. (true)

The Koala bear is popular with tourists in Australia. (true)
The Koala bear is surfing. (false)

Notice that unlike the example in (2) above, the pattern is at fault in the last
argument, not only the reasoning. Therefore, it is an invalid as well as
unsound argument.
As previously shown in the example in (2), a valid argument can also have
a true conclusion even if one premise is false.
The important thing to remember is that when the premises are true, and the
reasoning is correct, the conclusion is true, and the argument is sound and
valid.
There is another distinction between arguments, and these are the simple
and the complex. Simple arguments have one or more premises and a
conclusion. The earlier examples are all simple arguments.
On the other hand, a complex argument has a set of arguments whose
premises and/or conclusions overlap. Complex arguments have several
intermediate conclusions and one final conclusion. Consider the following
argument:

Our survey showed that the proposed product is viewed positively

by the market, so it enjoys high demand. However, the technology
needed to produce it is experimental, which will be too costly to
produce. The product must have a high demand and low cost to be
adopted. Otherwise, it shall undergo further development.

The argument is difficult to analyze in its original form, so we break it

down into its basic form, where P stands for the premise, IC for the
intermediate conclusion, and FC for final conclusion.

Pa1: The product scored positive market views.

Pa2: Positive market views indicate high demand.
ICa: The product has a high demand.
Pb1: The technology needed is experimental.
Pb2: Experimental technology is too costly.
ICb: The technology needed is too costly.
Pc1: The product has high demand but high cost.
Pc2: The product must have high demand and low cost to be
adopted.
ICc: The product cannot be adopted
Pd: If the product cannot be adopted, it will be further developed.
FC: The product will be further developed.
We more frequently encounter complex arguments than simple arguments.
Discussions or debates are complicated by many related issues that often
require extended reasoning [6].

Deduction And Induction

There are two types of reasoning, deductive and inductive. Deductive
reasoning is a fundamental form of logical inference that begins with a
general theory narrowed down by information and reasoning to reach a
specific conclusion. The scientific method uses this type of reasoning; it
begins with a hypothesis, qualifies it with observations, and ends with a
logical proof of the initial hypothesis [7]. “All planets in the solar system
revolve around the sun. The Earth is a planet in the solar system. Therefore,
the Earth revolves around the sun.”
Inductive reasoning proceeds in the reverse direction. It begins with the
specific observations and infers a general conclusion from them. Inductive
reasoning requires a larger amount of empirical data than deductive
reasoning. Patterns of relationships emerge from these data, and a general
theory is formulated [8].
Inductive reasoning more often employs statistical probabilities. “I took out
one candy from a pack of Skittles and found out it was red. I took out four
candies more from the same pack, and they all turned out red. Therefore, it
is likely that my pack of Skittles contains all red candies.”
There are two types of arguments that correspond to the types of reasoning.
These are deductive and inductive arguments. The premises in the
deductive form provide a conclusive proof of the claim. In the inductive
form, the premises express the likelihood, but not the certainty, of the
conclusion. Compare the following arguments:
Deductive argument:

Left-handed people write better with their left hand.

Arnold is left-handed.
Arnold writes better with his left hand.
Inductive argument:

Many left-handed people use left-handed scissors.

Arnold is left-handed.
Arnold uses left-handed scissors.

The difference between a deductive and inductive argument lies in the

intention of the arguer [9]. In deductive arguments, the arguer guarantees
that the conclusion is true by giving true premises. In inductive arguments,
the arguer believes that the truth of the promises only gives good reason to
believe that the conclusion is probably (but not definitely) true.
In the case of valid deductive arguments, the conclusion will always be true
if all the premises are true. But in the case of inductive arguments, it is
possible to have sound reasoning and still be wrong. This is because there is
some doubt as to whether at least one of the premises is true.
Another difference between the two is that deductive arguments assert the
claim that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. If
all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In contrast, an
inductive argument allows for some probability that the conclusion may be
more likely true than not true, without guarantee either way.
Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid. The same terms cannot
refer to inductive arguments; instead, they are either strong or weak [10].
Strong inductive arguments, like valid deductive arguments, do not need to
have all true premises. Still, if both premises are true, then it is likely that
the conclusion has a strong probability of being true. Cogency for inductive
arguments is similar to soundness for deductive arguments, where both
premises are true. All weak inductive arguments are uncogent, just as all
invalid deductive arguments are unsound.
The terms used to describe deductive and inductive arguments are broken
down and compared in the following diagram.
Source: DeMichele, T. (2017) [11]

Why We Argue
Why are we drawn to quarreling or trying to win an argument rather than
seeking the truth? The question admits of many conflicting issues. The first
is the elusive nature of truth. If truth were absolute, then it would be readily
perceived and accepted. Then there would be little need for debate. If an
absolute truth exists, it is one that observations can scientifically prove
through the five senses. But there lies the crux of all problems – there is no
simple answer, as there is no simple truth.

[C]ollectively, we keep acting as though there are simple answers.

We continually read about the search for the one method that will
allow us to cut through the confusion, the one piece of data that
tells us the “truth,” or the final experiment that will “prove” the
hypothesis. But almost all scientists will agree that these are fool’s
errands—that science is [a] method for producing incrementally
 more useful approximations to reality, not a path to absolute truth.
– Gavin Schmidt [12]

With its methods and standards for exactitude, if science, considering the
search for an absolute truth as “a fool’s errand,” then how much less could
logic lead to the discovery of “the truth”? The search for the truth is one
long, sustained debate. Even with the best of intentions, “seeking the truth”
leads to many false paths. The only way to test these theories is to subject it
to the crucible of debate, the tool of which is by winning the argument.
But bona fide intentions are not always assured. Often the goal becomes to
win the argument at the expense of the truth because the truth is anyway
relative. Cohen [13] of the New York Times sees this as the “need to triumph
in the debating arena.” The compulsion to decimate the opponent replaces
the quest to seek the truth.
The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, a theory developed by French
cognitive social scientists to explain how rationality becomes a weapon.
Mercier and Sperber [14] theorize that humans are dependent on
communication and vulnerable to misinformation. “Skilled arguers are not
after the truth but after arguments supporting their views” (p.57). Thus
reasoning resorts to distorting facts and enabling mistaken beliefs to persist
with winning as the motivation.
The same uncertainties about the truth underlie why we make guesses in
place of observations. Observations are perceptions of the environment
gathered by our five senses. We all observe the same things, but the mental
interpretations of what we perceive differ depending on our age, experience,
education, cultural and social orientation, and a host of other factors.
Making an educated guess is part of our sense-making impulse. Our logic
drives us to hypothesize in a manner that makes sense of our world in the
face of new stimuli. Guessing is part of our normal logical process, and it is
not wrong if it seeks subsequent validation through facts.

Action Steps
To better understand what an argument is, let us conduct a quick exercise
formulated by Prof. Bradley H. Dowden of California State University [2,
p.6]. Of the following four passages, identify which contains an argument
based on its technical definition. Try to think about the exercise and exert
some honest effort in arriving at an answer before checking out the solution
that follows.
a. I hate you. Get out of here!
b. I’m sure Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t die during the 1960s because it
says right here in the encyclopedia that he was assassinated in Memphis in
1998.
c. The Republican Party began back in the 1950s as a U.S. political party.
Abraham Lincoln was their first candidate to win the presidency.
d. I don’t believe you when you say Martin Luther King Jr. could have been
elected president if he hadn’t been assassinated.
What selection contains an argument, and what type of argument is it? (Try
to exert your best effort to answer before proceeding to the solution at the
end of the chapter.)

Moving On
Our children may swear allegiance to their superheroes, but their parents
have no excuse to lapse into poor reasoning habits. Structuring our thinking
along the lines of an argument clarifies the premises and their logical link to
the conclusion we want to advance. It helps weed out the logical errors we
often make, such as those we shall discuss in the next chapter.

Key Takeaways

Reasoning is a thought process, while argumentation is organizing

thoughts in a logical structure.
A valid argument complies with the logical structure.
 Invalid arguments may be sound or unsound. Invalid arguments are
always unsound.
Arguments may be deductive or inductive.

Solution To The Activity:

Selection (a) is an argument in its common usage, but not in the logical
sense. Selection (c) is a simple description of the Republican Party, without
a logical relation between the two statements. Selection (d) is a mere
statement of a belief. In (b), there is only one premise, and although
arguments usually have two or more premises, one alone is acceptable [2].
The answer to the exercise is (b). Many of us would not have identified this
as an argument because it alleges a falsity, i.e., that Martin Luther King was
assassinated in 1998. However, even if an argument contains some bad
information, it is nevertheless still an argument as long as there is a reason
(a premise) and a conclusion that is logically related to the reason. In this
case. The argument is a valid unsound deductive argument. In its classic
form, it would be:
Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1998. (false)
The year 1998 is not in the 1960s. (true)
Therefore, Martin Luther King did not die in the 1960s. (false)
 3

THE CULPRIT OF BAD REASONING: OUR LOGICAL

ERRORS AND BIASES

She wore tight corsets to give her a teeny waist - I helped her
lace them up - but they had the effect of causing her to faint.
Mom called it the vapors and said it was a sign of her high
breeding and delicate nature. I thought it was a sign that the
corset made it hard to breathe.
—J W ,H B H (2009) [15]

I f there ever were a symbol of torture in the name of beauty, it would

be the corset. Not only during the Victorian period but in any period in
history. Why any woman would go to such suffering to appear to have
a whistle bait waist just does not seem logical, justifying Walls’ common-
sense observation in that selection. But in her mother’s eyes, it’s more than
just a ploy to get men’s admiring attention. Corsets, to her mind, were a
sign of noble pedigree and social stature. Walls and her mother exhibited
different biases toward a lady’s undergarment that symbolized both
privilege and pathos, depending on their perspective.

Bias, Stereotyping, Prejudice, And Discrimination

Psychologists draw a fine distinction among four words we use
interchangeably: bias, stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. These
elements are the cause of logical errors we make almost daily [16].
Stereotyping involves generalizing a characteristic over an entire group of
people: “Canadians are polite while New Yorkers are rude.” Employers who
subscribe to this stereotype may give unfair attention to their employees’
nationality or residency; this is called bias. When bias creates a positive
attitude towards Canadians and a negative attitude towards New Yorkers, it
becomes prejudice. Finally, if the employer hires Canadians over New
Yorkers based on that prejudice, then the act is called discrimination.
Bias in a person’s attitude leads to prejudice, which comes from the root
words “pre” (before) and “judge” (decide). To prejudge is to render a
conclusion before proper reasoning. It shortcuts reason and jumps to an
assumption, a prejudgment, and therefore a wrong conclusion. In an
argument, introducing a bias in the premises results in an error in the
conclusion. An unsound argument, or a fallacy, is therefore created.
By its nature, a fallacy is not a moral thing, but the extent to which it may
be good or evil depends upon the purpose it serves.
For instance, the police may use fallacies to convince a criminal to reveal
facts he may know about a crime. “The superintendent may lighten your
sentence if you reveal where the stolen goods are.” This is a fallacy to the
extent that the superintendent may not have the power to lighten the
criminal’s sentence. If it leads the criminal to reveal where a crime’s
evidence is, then the fallacy has been used for good.
However, the fallacy is bad if it intends to lead to a false outcome. “The
superintendent will charge your son for conspiracy if you do not plead
guilty.” The fallacy here is that charges against the son will proceed unless
the father pleads guilty, which amounts to coercion.
The key to good judgment, therefore, is to distinguish a fallacy from a
sound argument. Not all fallacies have serious consequences; some are so
commonplace that we encounter them daily. Parents may think that their
daughter is more intelligent than their son because she gets higher math
grades than him. This is fallacious because there are many kinds of
intelligence. The son may be better at sports. Thus, he may have a higher
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence while his sister has a higher logical-
mathematical intelligence. They are thus equally intelligent in different
ways.
Fallacies show a logical argument’s deficiency because a logical connection
between the premises and the conclusion remains unrevealed. The parents
who mistakenly conclude that one child is more intelligent than the other
are not aware that other measures determine intelligence. The suspect was
not aware of the limitations in the superintendent’s powers to lighten his
sentence or charge his son without evidence. The premises stating these
specific concerns are not present. Therefore, the parents and the suspect
arrived at conclusions based on incomplete arguments.
It is difficult to detect a fallacy in real-world situations because cultural
stereotypes, cultural biases, and past experiences tend to trick our minds
into making irrelevant or invalid assumptions. The assumption fills the
missing premise, the incomplete argument appears whole, and the invalid
conclusion appears valid.

Action Steps
There are many methods of detecting formal fallacies. Three basic steps
could quickly identify the type of common fallacy that tricks our minds into
jumping to the wrong conclusion [17].
(1) Identify the wrong premises (the “bad proofs”). These can be outright
misstatements or implied comparisons, or examples that are irrelevant to the
conclusion. Celebrity brandings are a common type of fallacy. “Rihanna
uses the Fenty Beauty brand of makeup. If I use it, I will look as beautiful
as her,” implies a false comparison between the consumer and the celebrity.
The omitted premise is “I am not Rihanna,” therefore, what is good for
Rihanna is not necessarily good for me.
(2) Identify the wrong alternative outcomes. The often-implied choices may
not be the only ones possible, and awareness of other alternatives may
prevent us from making the wrong decision. “Robert is handsome and rich,
but he’s a playboy. Tommy doesn’t have a bad record, but he doesn’t have a
job either. Whom should I marry?” The answer does not have to be Robert
or Tommy because it can be “neither one.”
(3) Identify logical disconnects between premises and conclusion. Even if
the proofs or evidence are true, they may not be entirely relevant to the
conclusion or issue. “My parents died before the age of 65, and I have the
same health conditions as they did. Therefore, I will also die before I reach
65 years.” While it may be true that your parents died in middle age, and
you may indeed have inherited their health problems, there is no logical
certainty linking these premises and the certainty of your death. You may be
living a healthier lifestyle, and the causes of their passing may not be due
exclusively to your shared health conditions.

Moving On
Some people may think of a corset as a beauty aid; others see it as an Iron
Maiden Lite. Having different frames of mind is unavoidable. People have
biases that manifest as logical errors when least expected. Logical errors are
fallacies, which we will learn more about in the next chapter.

Key takeaways

Logical errors are rooted in personal biases.

Biases in the premises of an argument result in unsound arguments
or fallacies.
Fallacies interfere in the logical connection between premises and
conclusions.
Finding fallacies involves identifying the false premise, the
erroneous conclusion, or the logical disconnection between the
premise and conclusion.
 4

DEMYSTIFYING THE SO-CALLED FORMAL LOGICAL

ERRORS

By and large, the truth is not merely a fierce battle with

ignorance and fallacy, but, first and foremost, a combat with
our own preconceived ideas and aprioristic conceptions.
—E P ,L Q P (2007) [18]

W hat is the truth? This is the question at the center of all

philosophical inquiry, and there is no easy answer. We craft the
way we see the world, and it is only through the rules of logic
that we pierce through our misconceptions to perceive what truth is.
Our minds often interpret our surroundings through heuristics – rules of
thumb, an educated guess, or trial-and-error – that shortcut the logical
process. These result in recurring errors in reasoning we call fallacies. They
are of five basic types.

1. Affirming The Consequent (Modus Ponens)

This error in reasoning is a logical fallacy known as affirming the
consequent. Based on the result or consequent, the most readily apparent
cause is assumed to be true without considering other possible causes [19]. It
is of the form: “If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.”

If you were careless in driving, then the car would be dented.

 The car is dented.
Therefore, you were careless in driving.

Many husbands and wives have quarreled over this argument. The fallacy
lies in drawing a definite conclusion about the cause from the effect. When
several causes are possible, our mind often focuses on the most obvious
when some other explanation is possible. The dented car may have been
struck by a moving object, such as another car, without the fault of the
driver accused of carelessness.

If John throws a ball in the house, then a window gets broken.

A window is broken.
Therefore, John threw a ball in the house.

The broker window could have resulted from many things other than John
throwing a ball. The handyman could have miscalculated and swung a
ladder into the window. Or it is also likely that Jill was the thrower and not
John. Children, workers, or other subordinate persons often get unfairly
blamed for mishaps, only to be later proven innocent to the chagrin of the
accuser.
Could there be exceptions to the rule that the pattern redounds to a fallacy?
What if the consequent can have only one cause?

If there is a deadly build-up of toxic gas in the mine, it will kill the
canary.
The canary died.
Therefore, there is a build-up of toxic gas in the mine.

From 1911 to 1986, miners used canaries in coal mines to detect carbon
monoxide and other noxious gases. Strictly speaking, the canary can die of
many other causes such as age or illness. It would have made sense, though,
for the miners to bring young, healthy canaries with them to reduce the
probability of other causes. Happily, for canaries, digital detectors replaced
them in 1985 [20]. Their case shows that where a consequence can only
result from one cause, affirming the consequent ceases to be a fallacy.
2. Denying The Antecedent (Modus Tollens)
This fallacy is also known as the fallacy of the inverse, or inverse error.
Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy wherein the inverse from the
original statement is inferred. This is invalid because denying the
antecedent does not necessarily imply denying the consequent [19]. Its form
is: “If P, then Q. If not P, then not Q.”

If Mario is a professional golfer, then he is a good sportsman.

But Mario is not a professional golfer.
Therefore, he is not a good sportsman.

This argument’s error is concluding that Mario is not a good sportsman

solely because he is not a professional golfer. Not all good sportsmen are
professionals since some engage in sports as a hobby, not a career. Mario
may not even be good at golf, but he may be good at other sports – tennis,
boxing, video sports – making him a good sportsman.

If you take a teaspoon of virgin coconut oil every day, then you
will remain healthy.
You do not take virgin coconut oil.
Then you will not remain healthy.

Staying healthy can result from many things, such as healthy exercise,
sufficient rest, and having a healthy diet. While virgin coconut oil can
contribute to one’s health, not taking it does not necessarily become
unhealthy.
Again, be careful in determining whether or not ruling out the antecedent
really does result in ruling out the consequent. Take the following example.

If Zoe graduates from high school this year, then she could go to
college next year.
Zoe did not graduate from high school this year.
Therefore, Zoe cannot go to college next year.
While this argument follows the pattern for modus tollens, the antecedent
(graduating from high school) is a necessary requisite for the consequent
(studying in college the following year). Lack of a high school diploma will
not qualify Zoe for entrance into college.

3. Affirming A Disjunct
Another name of this fallacy is the false exclusionary disjunct. A disjunct
refers to one of the terms of a disjunctive proposition that excludes one term
from another. The fallacy of affirming a disjunct involved affirming one of
two things disjoined, then denying the other term. The error is assuming
that since one disjunct is false, the other should be true. The word OR is
inclusive, allowing for one or both of the disjuncts to be true [21]. This
fallacy has the form: “A or B. A. Therefore, not B.”

To get a scholarship, one should be either bright or good in sports.

Andrew got a sports scholarship.
Therefore, Andrew is not bright.

The first premise enumerates two ways of getting a scholarship. Andrew

was good at sports, and so he earned a sports scholarship. While it was true
that he did not earn an academic scholarship, this does not mean he was not
bright. Being good in sports does not exclude being bright.

Celia would love either a puppy or a kitten.

Celia loved the puppy she got.
That means she would not love a kitten.

Implicit in this example is the affection Celia has for animals in general and
that she would love a puppy or a kitten, whichever she received. Celia
received a puppy which she loved dearly. However, it is not right to say that
she would not love a kitten if she received it – or both pets if she received
both.
The disjunction is an “either-or” statement that implies the need for a
choice. However, there are two types of disjunctions. The inclusive or weak
disjunction allows for choosing one or both (either/or) of the alternatives.
The exclusive or strong disjunction allows a single choice, and the selection
of one alternative necessarily excludes the other.

In the movie, Chris will play either Thor or Loki.

Chris will play Thor.
Therefore, Chris will not play Loki.

An exclusive or strong disjunction does not produce a fallacy under

affirming a disjunct, because in this case, the affirming one disjunct denies
the other. Whether a disjunction is inclusive or exclusive is implied by the
nature of the disjunctive situation. Celia can love two pets, but Chris cannot
play two major roles in the same movie (assuming it is a conventional
movie and not employing digital special effects).

4. Denying A Conjunct
If a disjunct is a term disjoined from another, then a conjunct is a term
joined to another as being in the same class. The fallacy consists of
declaring, in the second premise, that one of the conjuncts is false, then
concluding the other is true. The error lies in assuming that negating one of
the conjuncts necessarily affirms the other when it is logically possible to
negate both [22]. There are two forms for this fallacy

Form 1: Not both p and q. Not p. Therefore q.

Form 2: Not both p and q. Not q. Therefore, p.

An example for this fallacy is:

Anthony is not both Catholic and atheist.

Anthony is not Catholic.
Therefore, he is an atheist.

Indeed, Catholics (a group of people who believe in God) are not atheists
(people who do not believe in God), and vice-versa. But there are other
groups who are not Catholic and still believe in God, so they are not
atheists. Anthony could be a member of another Christian denomination or
a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu. He may believe in God but be unaffiliated.
There are alternatives other than being atheist.

In the tournament, members of the same family cannot join both

the basketball and football games.
The Joneses did not join the basketball games.
Therefore, the Joneses will join the football games.

This argument’s fallaciousness lies in the possibility that the Joneses need
not choose from the two contests. They may join another game, or even no
game at all. The conjunction does not exclude this possibility.
By way of contrast, the validating forms for this conjunctive argument cure
the logical error and dispel the fallacy. They are of the alternative forms
(AF):

AF 1: Not both p and q. P. Therefore, not q.

AF 2: Not both p and q. Q. Therefore, not p.

So, the validating form for our conjunctive arguments would be:

Anthony is not both Catholic and atheist.

Anthony is a Catholic.
Therefore, he is not an atheist.

In the tournament, members of the same family cannot join both

the basketball and football games.
The Joneses joined the basketball game.
Therefore, the Joneses will not join the football game.

The conjunctive argument and denying a conjunct have similar forms, so

they are often confused for each other. Their difference lies in the second
premise, which is negative in denying a conjunct and affirmative in the
conjunctive argument. Denying a conjunct is fallacious and therefore not
valid, while the conjunctive argument is valid and therefore not fallacious.

5. The Fallacy Of The Undistributed Middle (Non Distributio Medii)

This fallacy is a syllogistic fallacy because it is the form of a categorical
syllogism.

All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all A is C.

The structure has two distinct but related premises, followed by a

conclusion that embodies the deductive argument. The middle term is that
term included in both syllogisms. Note that the basic syllogistic structure
comprises a valid argument because as long as its prepositions are true, then
it is logically sound.
When the use of the middle term in the argument includes all the members
of that class, then the middle term is said to be distributed. If the term refers
to only some of the members of the class, then it is undistributed. The rule
of logic requires that the middle term should be distributed in at least one of
the two premises for the syllogism to hold [20].
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is where the middle term (the
common term in both premises) is not distributed in either premise. It has
the form: “All Z is B. All Y is B. Therefore, all Y is Z.” B, the middle term,
is undistributed in both premises. The following is an example of this form
of fallacy.

All insects are animals.

All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all mammals are insects.

The middle term, animals, includes both insects and mammals as well as
many other groups. The logical error is obvious: insects and mammals are
different categories that exclude each other, even if they are both animals.

All vampires are bloodsuckers.

All female mosquitoes are bloodsuckers.
Therefore, all vampires are female mosquitoes.

The absurdity of Count Dracula transforming into an annoying egg-laying

insect rather than a bat highlights the fallacy of this statement.
A real-world scenario where the fallacy of the undistributed middle is
logically invalid is in litigation [23]. A question arose in a legal case as to
whether a “riverboat” must be registered as a “motorboat.” The argument of
the Bureau of Motor Vehicles was:

Riverboats are watercraft.

Motorboats are watercraft.
Therefore, riverboats are motorboats and are subject to registration
requirements.

The middle term in the syllogism is watercraft. The court ruled against this
argument, and riverboats were adjudged exempt from registration.

Action Steps
Formal fallacies involve a weakness in the form or technical structure of an
argument, rather than whether or not the conclusion is true. Five formal
fallacies are listed below. Try to identify each of them. Make your best
effort before finding the answers at the end of this chapter
1. All drivers are licensed, just as all physicians are licensed. That means all
drivers are physicians!
2. If Elmer bought a new car, he would attract a lot of beautiful women. But
he bought a used car, which is why women are not attracted to him.
3. Sally can play either the piano or the violin. She chose to play the piano,
therefore she cannot play the violin.
4. You would lose the contest if you did not prepare well. You lost the
contest, which only means that you did not prepare well.
5. My pet is not both a cat or a dog. My pet is not a cat. Therefore, it is a
dog.

Moving On
Pevernagie calls the truth a battle within ourselves against our preconceived
ideas. The truth is hard to accept, especially when it challenges our most
precious convictions that are, nevertheless, wrong. Among our
preconceived logical errors, formal errors are more readily found because
they are signalled by faulty argument structures. Informal errors are more
subtle and difficult to detect. We will learn about informal errors in the next
chapter.

Key Takeaways

Formal logical errors are faults in the structure of an argument.

Affirming the consequent should not lead to affirming the
antecedent.
Denying the antecedent should not lead to denying the consequent.
Affirming one disjunct should not deny the other disjunct.
Denying one conjunct should not automatically affirm the other
conjunct.
The middle term should be distributed in one of the premises.

Solution To The Exercise:

1.Undistributed middle
2.Denying the antecedent
3.Affirming a disjunct
4.Affirming the consequent
5.Denying a conjunct.
 5

THE INFORMAL LOGICAL ERRORS WE EXPERIENCE

EVERYDAY

“M ommy, what is sex?”

Parents are bound to get this question from their children
at some point, but I never thought I would hear it from my five-year-old
son, Cedric, on the first day of kindergarten class. Making a mental note to
accost his teacher when I had the chance, I sat Cedric on my knee, heaved a
sigh, and launched the birds-and-the-bees talk meant for adolescents.
When I finished, he had a puzzled look. “O…K…” then he raised the card
he was holding. “But how do I put all of that on this I.D.? The teacher said
we should fill it up. I already put my name and age. But sex just has a small
box. What should I write?”
“Oh. OH!... Just write ‘M,’ son!”
The little boy forgot about our talk just as quickly as he filled his card out,
which is a relief. At times like these, I scold myself and promise to never
repeat the same mistake. Yet, no matter how we might resolve to better
discipline our minds, it is impossible to avoid the hundred-and-one lapses
we make each day. It cannot be helped; our words crawl at a snail’s pace
while our ideas fly with eagles’ wings.

Informal Fallacies
In Chapter 4, we encountered formal fallacies. They are the logical thinking
errors that involve mistakes in the pattern of arguments and the
relationships between premises and conclusions. However, some fallacies
do not involve the formal structure but rather are logical errors we make
everyday that involve unsound reasoning.
Informal fallacies are not limited to words and sentences but instead are
more of logical misadventures. The logical mistakes that make up fallacies
sometimes result from ill intent, inconsistency, irrelevance and
insufficiency. More often, they emerge from simple misconceptions and
force of habit. We frequently find ourselves committing mistakes in
reasoning and judgment that turn out to be predictable because we have
made them before.

Why Do We Tend To Make Predictable Logical Mistakes?

Funder [24] touches on the social nature of logical errors and why we tend to
repeat them when faced with real-world situations even though we are
already aware of them. In his seminal study, Funder distinguished “error”
from “mistake,” describing the error as an incorrect judgment of an
experimental stimulus (i.e., a situation studied in isolation) and mistake as
an incorrect judgment of a real-world stimulus.
We tend to treat errors as “shortcomings” of judgment, equivalent to the
degree to which people can “reason well” or “make good decisions.” It is a
deviation from a model, an ideal, of how a judgment should be made. The
mistake is done unintentionally.

Every Black Friday, Sasha goes on an irrational buying binge. She

fights for her place in line and rushes to grab the fast-moving
merchandise, only to end up buying things she doesn’t even need
or want. Every year, Sasha resolves to avoid the next Black Friday
rush, but every year finds her back.

Sasha knows that it defies reason to buy things she does not need just
because they are on sale, but many people are like Sasha. She is caught up
in the mad dash, doing what everybody else is doing but not really thinking.
Commercial retailers exploit consumers’ irrational buying impulses as part
of their marketing strategy. Thus, a logical error becomes a recurring
mistake driven by real-world conditions.
There are other reasons why we repeat the same logical errors. One is the
degree to which we recall our past successes and failures, but recall does
not improve the likelihood of not committing the error. People find it
difficult to recall mistakes they have made because it is more difficult to
remember many mistakes than just one or two. Trying to recall only makes
the mental process slower and more deliberate and may lead to making
even more mistakes [25].

Child: “Dad, may I go to Cecile’s party?”

Dad: “Go ask your mother.”
Child: “She said to ask you.”
Dad: “Okay then, just be sure to get home on time.”
And so the child leaves.
Mom: “Where’s Bernadette?”
Dad: “She went to her classmate’s party. I allowed her.”
Mom: “Why? I didn’t give my permission. I grounded her for not
doing her homework.”
Silence.
Mom: “She pulled a fast one on you again, huh?”
Dad: “I never learn.”

Dad is not entirely at fault because his daughter could have asked his
permission many times in the past to circumvent her mother. Sometimes it
was right to give permission, and sometimes it was not. Trying to recall all
those times his wife probably agreed with him and the other times she did
not could make mental recall slower and more difficult.
Emotions also play a role in our judgment or decision-making process. How
we feel shapes our decision-making process, such that logically correct
decisions are avoided if they trigger negative feelings and vice-versa [26].

Ingrid: “I never learn. This is the fifth time I caught him with
another girl. Every time he begs for forgiveness, saying he will
change his ways. And every time I believe him.”
 Stella: “So this time you kicked him out?”
Ingrid: “I can’t. What if this is the last time and he really changes?”

These theories about social contexts, emotions, and slow recall have broad
application in our psychological make-up and give us some insight into how
our minds work. It explains why we often commit the same logical mistakes
as those we had already known to be errors.

Fallacies We Commonly Encounter

Ever heard of gremlins? Early English folklore described them as
mischievous little creatures with spiky backs, large eyes, sharp teeth, and
claws. They cause aircraft and other machines to malfunction in a way that
mystifies mechanics. They appeared in the 1984 American movie [27],
where the repugnant creatures popped out from a cute little fluffy pet called
mogwai. Everybody said, “How could such ugly monsters come from such
a cute thing?”
Informal fallacies are much like gremlins. Disguised as sound reasons, they
are actually naughty creatures that cause malfunctions in our thought
processes. While our rational brain is off-guard, sneaky black swans, red
herrings, straw men, slippery slopes, and a host of other well-concealed
tricks and traps hijack our reasoning to create confusion and mischief.
Before we know it, we end up with faulty conclusions and decisions that
bring embarrassment and regret.
We are often unaware of the informal logical errors we make even as we are
making them. They are mostly inadvertent, but sometimes we even resort to
them intentionally to win an argument by confusing our opponent or to
justify an unsound decision. Informal fallacies are more difficult to identify
than formal fallacies because, unlike formal fallacies, the logical mistake
does not reduce to a readily identifiable thought pattern.
There are more than a hundred informal logical errors, but we will discuss
those most commonly encountered. Identifying them and understanding
how they constitute unsound reasoning will help us avoid making erroneous
decisions when we encounter them.
1. Hasty Generalization
A generalization is a statement about a group stating that all, some, or a
proportion of the group’s members, possess a particular attribute. A simple
generalization could be, “Cows give milk.” This is a commonly accepted
truth, but it would have been more accurate to say, “Some cows give milk,”
because cows that do not become pregnant and give birth do not produce
milk. The average milk-giving cycle for cows is three years [28].
Generalizations are the general rule, accepted as true despite some
exceptions.
Hasty generalizations are fallacies of missing evidence. In this type of
fallacy, the conclusion is arrived at based on insufficient or biased evidence,
and therefore is not logically justified. Sometimes, the conclusion is based
on vaguely-recalled anecdotes. It is also called “the fallacy of insufficient
samples.”

The ocean voyage was marred by mishaps and unfortunate events,

ever since the cook Damien joined them at the last port of call.
They therefore suspected that Damien was the Jonah onboard.

Practically all sailors believe that their voyage over the perilous waters
depends on luck due to the uncertainty of their journey. Superstitions catch
on as a “general rule” even if there is little evidence to substantiate them. So
rational decision-makers should set them aside, even if so-called anecdotal
evidence seems particularly persuasive.
In quantified research, the conclusion may involve findings anchored on an
unrepresentative or misspecified sample instead of a sample that is more
aligned with the overall population.

The findings of the study suggested that the student population of

the university consisted of 80% women. Members of the survey
sample came from three programs: nursing, women’s and gender
degrees, and elementary education.
If the researchers drew the samples from groups where one attribute (in this
case, gender) is dominant, it does not necessarily introduce a problem IF the
conclusion is attributed only to those groups. However, if results from a
skewed sample are generalized over a wider population, then the conclusion
is misleading. To obtain a reliable conclusion for the entire university in the
situation above, the sample should include enrollees in engineering, military
science, the seminary, or other programs where males may dominate, or
programs where both genders are present to the same degree. The trick, of
course, is to garner a sample sufficient to represent the target population.
A hasty generalization may also make a general conclusion out of a
particular situation or a single piece of supporting evidence; this is “the
fallacy of the lonely fact” [29].

While the professor was proctoring an exam, the college clerk

came and spoke to him briefly at the classroom doorway. When he
turned back to the class, he saw two students whispering and
giggling. He presumed that the class took advantage of his brief
distraction and cheated behind his back. He stopped the exam and
gave the entire class a failing grade.

However, even if the sample size were large, the bias is obvious that it
makes the conclusion unconvincing. Sometimes the conclusion is made
over an entire group of people based on observations made over a few of
their members. It may result in judgments that may seem unethical or even
slanderous.

A group of hikers were trekking across a hill considered sacred

ground by the indigenous people. The site was so popular among
tourists that the natives became wary of visitors to the area. When
the hikers rested, one of them, unbeknownst to his companions,
etched “U.S.A.” on the trunk of a hundred-year-old tree. The native
residents discovered the offending mark, and upon their petition
the local government banned all American tourists from entering
the area.
In this case, the act of one member of a group was taken to represent the act
of all. The consequence of a single act was imposed upon all Americans
because of the letters “U.S.A.” etched on a tree. The situation becomes
more absurd with the possibility that the offender might not even be from
the U.S.A., which makes the generalization all the more irrational.

Addressing The Fallacy:

It is important not to rush to judgment. Begin by finding other data on the
same issue, then weighing whether these are sufficient to overturn the
generalization made.

2. Appeal To Authority
In reasoning, we try to find solid ground, outside of our own thinking, to
anchor our premises. Whether they be persons, institutions, or classical
texts, authorities are powerful sources of corroboration or contradiction of
our assumptions. But reliance on the authority, if not properly established,
can become a fallacy that traps the unwary.
In appeals to a person of authority, the argument is that something must be
true because an alleged expert on the matter claimed it as true. This is also
called an appeal to false authority.

Will advised us to bring flowers when visiting our daughter’s

German mother-in-law for the first time. Will visited Germany
once, and he was married and divorced five times, so he must
know a lot about German mothers-in-law.
Ramon always uses Axe Body Spray. If it is good enough for Ben
Affleck, then it is good enough for Ramon.
Madame Esperanza, the fortune teller, announced that the planets’
alignment this year will bring either good fortune or bad luck,
depending on your zodiac sign.
The three authorities in these examples are Will (not a German), Ben
Affleck, the actor, and Madame Esperanza, the fortune teller. Obviously,
their claims to authority are not strong. Will relies on stock knowledge, Ben
Affleck is a paid endorser, and Madame Esperanza dabbles in mysteries that
defy explanation and credulity. It is easy to see why they would be false
authorities.
But what if Will’s single visit to Germany was for ten years, Ben Affleck’s
global fan club members agree that he does smell nice, and Madame
Esperanza is the national president of Psychics of America who happened
to validate her predictions based on their knowledge of the mystic arts?
Suppose all sides agree that the person cited as an advocate is truly a
reliable authority on the subject of discussion. In that case, this argument is
not a fallacy for the parties concerned, but an inductive argument – i.e., an
argument that is neither valid nor invalid, sound nor unsound.
It may be weak or strong, cogent or uncogent. Still, to the eyes and ears of
their believers, it is an argument that admits of some probability because it
comes from an authority they collectively recognize.

According to the feng shui expert, it is bad luck to align the front
door and the back door of a dwelling or business establishment
without any obstruction between them. The flow of good energy
that comes in the front door will quickly escape through the back
door without first moving through the home or workplace.
The Farmer’ Almanac, which sells four million copies each year
[30], stated that there would be sunny and cool weather from

November 5 thru 10, but from February 12 to 19, there will be

heavy snow in some places close to the eastern seaboard.

It is not a secret that all traditional Chinese individuals and establishments

consult a feng shui expert before making major decisions. It is also
undeniable that the Farmer’s Almanac, established in 1792 [31], continues to
provide online advice to all farmers and gardeners [32]. A subsequent
section will discuss parallels between these types of arguments and appeals
to faith.
There are two special cases of appeal to authority fallacies.

2.1 Citing An Authority Out-Of-Context

Decisions are better if one can rely on the actual words of a known
authority. But at times, the message conveyed is wrong because the words
are incomplete, out of context, or misrepresented.

Doctor: “Lina, you should cut down on carbohydrates.”

Lina: “But Doc, you said I could have one cup of carbs per meal.”
Doctor: “Uh, uh, listen, Lina. One cup of carbs per day.”
Monica’s teacher told her class, “I won’t give you written
assignments this weekend, but when you go home, read the chapter
because we will have a long examination on Monday.” When
Monica’s mother asked, “Don’t you have homework to do,
Monica?” The youngster replied, “No, Mom. The

teacher said we don’t need to do homework this weekend.”

Quoting or citing an authority out of context is done to make it appear that
the authority is backing a position favorable to the arguer. In truth, the true
position of the authority is neutral or opposite to the misrepresentation.
The fallacious statement is actually close to the authority’s true statement
and only differs slightly. Sometimes, the difference may be due to a
misunderstanding (i.e., “per meal” is understood as “per day”) or a lack of
understanding (i.e., Monica does not have a written assignment, but she has
a reading assignment).

Addressing the fallacy:

Often, we fail to discern a statement out of context just from the statement
itself unless some background research is done on the authority supposedly
making it.
If the authority is a celebrity, what were her past opinions on the matter, and
are they consistent with the present alleged statement?
If we personally know the authority cited, the best is to ask if she really
stated it as reported. Monica’s mother could call the teacher or probably
another parent to verify if what Monica said was true.

2.2 Appeal To Faith

When an argument bases its claim on faith, then take care in analyzing the
argument. There are claims citing the authority of a written religious text of
wide acceptance such as the Bible, Torah, or Koran, or a person such as the
Pope, Mohammed, or minister of established reputation. In such instances,
where all parties agree on the authority, it should not be regarded as a
fallacy but as an inductive argument [33].
However, there are times when the authority relied upon is a belief, a norm
handed down by tradition, or some other amorphous thing. The premise
redounds to an accepted dogma or divine truth that defies proof. This can be
tricky because, for believers, faith goes beyond logic or reason.

The angel of God appeared to me and told me to establish a chapel

at the mountaintop. If you have faith, you will see that I tell the
truth.

The truth of the angel’s appearance to the speaker is not what makes this a
fallacy, but his declaration that those with faith will believe him. The reality
is that some people of faith will not believe in him because they may decide
that he lacked credibility. The claim seeks its validation in faith, possibly
because there is no other way to prove it.
However, we should beware that the mere mention of faith or belief as the
basis for a claim does not immediately redound to a fallacy. The following
are instances when a faith-rationale was first dismissed as fallacious and
then subsequently validated by gaining general acceptance and recognition.
 The fifth commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Therefore,
even in a war, I will not hold a rifle or a knife to kill my enemy.

In World War II, Desmond Doss signed up with the U.S. infantry as a
conscientious objector – he would not hold a rifle even during training. A
devout Seventh-day Adventist he believed that taking a life even in a war is
against God’s will. For his stubbornness, he was frequently ridiculed and
reviled. Subsequently, he served as a medic and served with distinction,
saving the lives of more than 100 men. Soon after, he received the Medal of
Honor for his actions [34]. His extraordinary conviction became the subject
of a recent biographical motion picture, Hacksaw Ridge [35].

The Hindu faith venerates rats as holy, and rodents have occupied a
sacred place in Indian history. Rats should, therefore, never be
exterminated.

Rodents are considered the source of disease and pestilence, for which
modern-day sensibilities require their eradication. However, in India, they
are venerated and have been for centuries, as seen in archaeological sites in
that country [36]. To this day, the Temple of Rats stands in the State of
Rajasthan in India to honor the Hindu deity Karni Mata.

Islam considers charging interest for a loan as an unjust and

immoral practice. Therefore, banks cannot condone interest
payments.

Modern banking is founded on the concept of the time value of money and
that the use of monies loaned out must earn interest. However, followers of
Islam are forbidden by Shariah law to charge or pay Riba (interest) because
this is an uncharitable and usurious practice [37]. This is irreconcilable with
Western practice. However, with the rise of Islamic banking, interest-free
banking products have been made available even through the traditional
banking system.
 Thirteen is considered an unlucky number. That is why many high-
rise buildings do not designate the 13th floor.

Originally, (and sometimes still) dismissed as superstitious with no basis in

logic, there exists an aversion for the unlucky number 13. In the
construction of high-rise buildings and particularly hotels, however, the
tradition has caught on not to have a thirteenth floor, or if one existed, to not
have it accessible by elevator. Building designers, construction companies,
and elevator companies have, therefore, adopted the practice of not
including the 13th floor if clients specify it. Hotel guests and building
tenants refuse to stay or rent spaces on the thirteenth floor, thereby
institutionalizing the practice [38].

Addressing The Fallacy:

Be cautious in immediately identifying faith- or belief-based reasons as
fallacious. Suppose all parties involved agree that the value or belief is
irrelevant, in that case, the argument reduces to a Red Herring (another
fallacy), and the premise alleging the value becomes an irrelevant issue.
If some parties believe in the veracity of the value or belief, and others do
not, then it would be foolish to debate what conflicting sides already
consider undebatable. The most sensible recourse is mutual respect and to
agree to disagree.
Why is it important to look into people’s belief patterns when evaluating
appeals to authority or faith? Human beings are complex creatures in whom
logic and belief or faith play powerful roles in decision-making.
At all times, we should keep in mind that the decisions we make affect or
involve other people, those with whom we may or may not share the same
set of beliefs or values. This is particularly true in our current global
business setting and international collaborations.
Therefore, when your Chinese business partner suggests that the new
restaurant should face east because the feng shui expert said so, think twice
before calling his reasoning irrelevant.
3. Appeal To Emotions
This fallacy is also known as manipulative appeals to pathos, manipulation
of emotions, or “playing to the gallery.” The “gallery” refers to the
members of the general public who are naïve or gullible and who are easily
swayed by emotional narratives. Arguments that play to the emotions are
far from rational; people resort to when there are no good reasons to support
the claim. Unsurprisingly, appeals to emotion comprise commercial
advertisements.

Fine dining restaurants and hotels advertise their Valentine’s Day

packages by showing a handsome couple apparently in love and
enjoying an elegant candle-lit dinner in one of these
establishments.
Charities and foundations advertise for sponsorships and donations
by highlighting the plight of poor families or the pitiful conditions
of children in need.

There are specific types of emotions that a fallacy can appeal to. There are
five appeals to emotion frequently used.

3.1 Appeal to Pity

“Please include me in the graduation ceremonies, Dean Smith,

please! My family is here, including my relatives from abroad,
because they thought I had passed! And they’re all dressed up!
Would you break their hearts?”

Dean Smith should not allow an unworthy student to graduate because this
violates the rules. If he gives way to pity, he acts with official authority and
publicly conveys a degree on an unworthy student, further compromising
the school.
3.2 Appeal To Fear

Ordering online can be dangerous. Roy ordered online using his

credit card, and in two days, he found out that all his accounts were
hacked! Better go and purchase the product personally so you can
pay cash.

Ordering online can be safe with the proper precautions by using third-party
payor services. There are advantages to making in-person purchases, but
these are rational considerations that have nothing to do with the fear of
credit fraud.

Children, you’d better finish everything on your plate. When you

die, your soul will come back to pick up every grain of rice you
ever left behind.

Sometimes the fear inspired comes as a fateful consequence for defying the
unwritten law. This is particularly effective in scaring children into
following since they do not question the logical soundness of it.

3.3 Assigning Guilt by Association

Members of the jury, the accused, is a Hong Kong national and

may well be part of the 14-K Triad, the largest drug trafficking
syndicate in the world whose roots also are in Hong Kong.

Not all Hong Kong nationals are Triad members, just as not all Mexicans
are MS-13 members, and not all Japanese are members of the Yakuza. Real
guilt should attach because of real culpability, not imagined ones.

3.4 Appeal To Group Loyalty

 Juliet, as a member of the Alpha-Gamma-Phi sorority, you are
forbidden from striking a friendship with Romeo because he
belongs to the Sigma-Theta-Omega fraternity, our long-time
adversaries.

Juliet is free to befriend Romeo if she wants to, except if she is a minor and
there are real concerns to forbid her from such friendships (such as a rap
sheet in Romeo’s name). Group loyalty should not constrain discretion
about one’s personal affairs.

3.5 Appeal To Shame

Alejandro, you are the son of the chief justice and the grandchild of
the author of our nation’s civil code. But you flunked your first
year of law school! What will your father’s colleagues think? His
law fraternity?

Alejandro can tell his parents he’s not interested in becoming a lawyer and
instead pursues his passion for music and the arts.
The five arguments above can be quite convincing for people who decide
based on their knee-jerk reactions when faced with problems. Deep
emotional involvement in a dilemma can persuade one to decide in favor of
quickly easing the personal discomfort he or she is facing, even if the
decision is not well thought out.

Addressing The Fallacy:

Looking past the short-term reactions by thinking the problem through can
prevent future regrets. When faced with an argument that triggers deep
emotional reactions, the best is to refrain from deciding at the moment to
provide time for calm and reflection.
Also, remember that fallacy notwithstanding, the claim may still be true if
backed by reason, so keep an open mind. What is important is that the
decision should not be solely based on emotion, without thinking of the
long-term repercussions that may lead to regrets later. Decide based on
logic rather than impulse

4. Appeal To Ignorance
Some arguments base their claim on the absence of any evidence that
disproves it. When an argument reasons that something is either true or
false based on a lack of evidence, this appeals to ignorance [39]. It is
fallacious because a non-proof affirms nothing, therefore concluding that it
affirms something is an absurdity.
Take the following frequently-encountered argument.

Can anybody vouch for where you were on the night of the crime?
If you do not have an alibi, then you are guilty.

In cop shows, too much emphasis is sometimes placed on the alibi of a

suspect. If he cannot prove by objective testimony that he was somewhere
else, the crime investigators regard him as guilty. But such is not the case,
not even under the law enforcement procedures that movies try to imitate.
We have been conditioned to believe that we may be found guilty of a crime
because we may not have an alibi. Without positive proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, one cannot be convicted based on mere suspicion.

Your teacher suspects that you cheated in the last exam. Prove to us
that you did not cheat, or you will be suspended.

It is impossible to prove a negative proposition. What you can do is prove

the impossibility that you cheated – such as not having taken the test at all.

There is no proof that intelligent life exists on other planets.

Therefore, the earth is the only planet where there is intelligent life.
The absence of proof simply means that access to possible evidence is
lacking. This is the same dilemma as the tree falling in the middle of a
forest when there is nobody around to hear it. The fact that nobody was
around to hear the crash does not mean there was no noise.

There is no scientific proof of an afterlife. Therefore, there is no

life after death.

Proof comes in many forms, depending on the orientation of the parties

involved in the discussion. Scientific proof refers to the positivist approach
that requires evidence observed by the five senses and analyzed through the
scientific method. However, the interpretivist or constructivist approach
allows for proof using observers’ subjective interpretation or construction
of their experiences. A conclusion arrived at through the use of one method
of proof may not be the same conclusion reached by another method,
therefore, it is important to consider how the listener interprets the
evidence.

DNA testing is not available in this remote country, so Sally cannot

prove that John is the father of her child. Therefore, John is not the
father of Sally’s child.

This proof specifies one of several methods, although it is the most accurate
and conclusive. However, the inability to carry out a DNA test is not
justification for ruling out paternity nor. Neither is it, of course, the
justification for ruling in its favor. The matter is simply inconclusive.
The appeal to ignorance works as a fallacy only if the absence of proof still
admits that other possible conclusions may exist. The possibility of multiple
outcomes is an important element of appeal to ignorance. But if the
possibilities are finite and all are ruled out except one, then the remaining
possibility must be true. This is a case where the absence of proof is proof
of the claim.

Josie said she would be waiting for me at the Starbucks near her
school. But there are two Starbucks stores near her school, one at
 1st Street and the other at Main Street. Josie is not in the Main
Street Starbucks, so she must be waiting for me at 1st. Street.

Josie has confirmed her presence at one of two places, and she is not
present at one of them. Then it is conclusive that Josie is at the other place.

The pea is under one of three shells. The shells at the left and the
right are empty. Therefore, the pea is under the shell in the middle.

The shell game is a popular sleight-of-hand trick to fool people into

thinking that an object can be only under one of three shells. The truth is the
trick is played by the illusionist deftly concealing the pea in his or her hand
rather than placing it under the shells. This makes the possibilities four
instead of three, and the pea’s absence in the two outer shells reduces the
choice to two – under the middle shell or in hand. For certainty to prevail in
an appeal to ignorance exception, there must be good faith and full
disclosure of all the alternative possibilities. Otherwise, the fallacy holds.

There are only four men on this island, but Paul, George, and
Ringo are all infertile. Therefore, John is the father of Sally’s child!

Implicit in this example is that Sally has not left the island. Therefore, only
four men could have fathered her child. By ruling out the three, one can
safely conclude that John is the father even without a DNA test.

If there is no evidence proving his guilt, then he must be declared

innocent.

In logic, the absence of evidence that a suspect committed the crime does
not prove guilt or innocence. However, the presumption of innocence is
mandatory by operation of law. It is a legal convention that ensures a person
is not put in a position of uncertainty; therefore, he is either innocent or
guilty based on the availability of evidence.
 The crime alleged is armed insurrection. But there is no proof that
the people were armed. Therefore, there is no crime.

The presumption of innocence under the law is conclusive unless evidence

arises to the contrary. In criminal law, the necessary elements of the crime
are identified, and the burden of proof is placed on the party making the
allegation. If the evidence fails to prove all the necessary elements of the
crime, then it is as if there is no evidence, and the accused is presumed
innocent of the crime charged.

Addressing The Fallacy

Before declaring that an appeal to ignorance is fallacious, we should ensure
that the absence of proof exhausts all other possibilities or that a legal
presumption does not exist that dictates the conclusion when evidence is not
present. If alternatives are possible other than the claim the argument
makes, we need not fall for arguments based on the absence of proof.

5. Black Swan Fallacy

This is a fallacy arising from the tendency of people to ignore evidence that
runs counter to their presumptions and beliefs. Its name derives from the
generally held belief that all swans are white, therefore, if a bird is a swan,
then that bird must be white. That general belief proved false, however. A
Dutch explorer named Willem de Vlamingh chanced upon black swans in
Australia during a rescue mission, for which reason the black swan was
incorporated in the flag of Western Australia [40]. His discovery also
disproved the presumption that all swans are white.
There is a presumption that everyone takes to be true in a black swan
fallacy, but that turns out later to be false. This presumption was the basis
for a decision that the arguer thinks he or she is making with certainty
because of the certainty of the presumption (i.e., the white swan).
Overturning the presumption, therefore, also overturns the soundness of the
conclusion.
 Tropical countries do not have winters.
Winters are needed to train athletes in winter sports.
Tropical countries could not train athletes in winter sports.

Most people would presume that countries in tropical regions are unable to
compete in winter games because of their balmy climate. In 1992, the first
ice skating rink in Asia was built in the Philippines. In 2014, Michael
Martinez became the first skater who grew up and trained in Southeast Asia
to qualify for the Winter Olympics. The fallacy, therefore, lies in the
presumption that countries without winters could not train local athletes to
compete in any winter sports.

Our Australian trip was scheduled for July, so I brought all my

summer clothes, swimwear, tanning lotion, and beach towels.
Wrong decision: Winter in Australia spans June to August.

The argument mentions July, which, in the U.S., is summertime. Some

American might presume the seasons are the same in another country
without realizing that they are actually reversed for southern-hemisphere
states
The arguments above deal with the common erroneous mental images that
many people have about people or things. The mistaken associations are
due more to a mindset brought by common usage rather than prejudice.
The Black Swan fallacy can also refer to the belief that something a person
has never witnessed cannot exist. Philosophers point to the Black Swan
discovery as a metaphor for discovering that something a person thought
impossible is possible [41].
Take the two following real-life stories about things thought to be
impossible turning out to be quite possible.

Arnold’s grandmother asked him if he wanted to go on a trip with

them. She said, “If you decide to come, you will lose your birthday
this year.” Arnold thought it was impossible to lose his birthday, so
he decided to join his grandparents on the trip. They left Los
 Angeles on January 9th and arrived in Manila on January 11th.
They lost one day, January 10th, crossing the International Date
Line – and that’s how Arnold lost his birthday for that year.
Juan courted Anita for six long years. In the seventh year, he asked
her, “Anita, when will you agree to marry me?” Anita replied,
“When the crow turns white,” which is women-speak for “Never.”
But Juan would not be deterred. The next day, he gave Anita a
computer printout of a crow with entirely white plumage.
Apparently, 1% of the Corvus Brachyrhynchos, or American
Crows, are afflicted with “albinism.” Touched by his persistence
(and because she always kept her promises), Anita married Juan
before the year’s end.

While these stories’ outcomes were not seriously detrimental, so-called

“impossible” conditions may be written into contracts.

The co-parties agree to the finality of the merger in ten years unless
a regime change takes place in Cambodia, where they will
establish the joint venture.

A contracting party may feel confident that a coup d’etat has little to no
chance of happening in ten years, only to be caught by it happening in the
tenth year.

Addressing The Fallacy

How could one avoid the pitfalls of the black swan fallacy? Nothing short
of vigilance regarding the implications of words and phrases that stand out
in the argument. By its very name, a “black swan” is something believed to
be impossible because nobody has ever seen it [42]. Therefore, unless it is
encountered then there is no way of knowing that it is possible.
The best way is to thoroughly research assertions, conditions, and
stipulations that suggest a remote possibility. Where possible, rule out
expressions that appear to be idiomatic or figurative (such as “unless the
crow turns white”). Instead, couch the argument in plain language. When
conditional language is necessary (as in a contract), anchor the conditions in
known rather than unknown events. It will eliminate many future
unwelcome surprises.

6. Begging The Question

This fallacy occurs when at least one of the premises of the argument
assumes that the conclusion is true instead of reinforcing or proving it. In
effect, the claim is assumed to be true even without proof. Another term for
the fallacy is “Arguing in a Circle” [43].
The name “begging the question,” which literally means “a question that
begs to be answered,” is perplexing because there is no question at all that
begs to be answered. The fallacy assumes the conclusion and does not leave
any doubt about it. It’s Latin translation is petitio principii (“petitio”
meaning petition, appeal to or beg, “principii” meaning the principle, or
issue in question) [44]. The transition suggests that “begging the question”
happened to be a direct translation of the Latin term, which did not really
convey the essence of the fallacy.
Take the following examples of the circular fallacy.

In the year 2000, the world will end as we know it, because at
12:01 a.m. on that day, all power will turn off, planes will fall from
the sky, phone lines will go dead, and we will return to the Dark
Ages.

The foregone conclusion in the argument above the sinister Y2K will
definitely take place, and as proof, the premises list all the tragedies that
will occur because of it. The premises do not explain the reasons or causes
supporting the claim that a worldwide disaster will take place at the turn of
the millennium. To set the argument straight, it could have explained that all
computers upon which all automated information processing relies will
reset to the double zero “00” due to faulty programming. It was a false
analysis, but at least it cited a possible cause, not an effect, of Y2K.
 Golf is a popular sport because many people enjoy playing it.

Any sport gains popularity because it is loved and enjoyed by many people.
It is the definition of “popular.” Therefore, the premise of the above
argument merely restates the conclusion. This is singular reasoning.

The government should legalize cannabis for recreational purposes

because many people find pleasure in indulging in its use.

The argument is a play on the word “recreational,” which, in its legal sense,
is the contrast of “medicinal” or used for therapeutic purposes. Arguing that
cannabis should be accepted for recreation because many people enjoying it
is a mere restatement of the nature of its use. A sound argument would
explain why the law should eliminate recreational marijuana from the list of
narcotics prohibited by law, such as the discovery that such use of the
substance does not harm human health.
Begging the question does not require any question at all, differentiating it
from the complex question fallacy. There are two questions involved in the
latter, where the answer to a given question presumes an answer given to a
previous question. There is no circular reasoning in this latter fallacy, but an
implied answer to a hidden question.

Inspector to suspect: “So when did you last beat up your wife?”

In this complex question, an affirmative answer to a hidden question, “Did

you beat up your wife?” was presumed, without giving the suspect a chance
to deny it. Actually, police interrogation tactics sometimes use this ploy to
trick the suspect into a confession by making him believe that his crime has
already been proven.

Addressing The Fallacy

It takes a quick mind to detect circular fallacies. Try to identify which in the
argument is the evidence for the claim. If it is very similar to or something
that the claim already includes, then you have a circular fallacy. Ask for
more evidence, additional examples, or proof that chronologically precedes
the claim. If the arguer can supply none, you know that there is no sound
premise, and therefore the argument is fallacious.

7. Black-Or-White Fallacy
As the name implies, this fallacy forces a choice between only one or the
other extreme choice (either black or white) when there are other
alternatives (gray areas) to choose from. The fallacy is forcing a choice
between only two alternatives.
A black or white fallacy is deceptive because it tricks the listeners into
thinking that only two choices are possible, and the absence of merit in one
makes acceptance of the other extreme the only solution. The arguer
presents the quality that contrasts the two choices as the only important
criterion for decision-making.

Chloe’s mother disapproved of her desire to enroll in a fine arts

course. “Being an artist does not guarantee a good income. Better
choose medicine as your career because doctors earn well!”

Many high school seniors who are about to select their college programs
face this decision. Realistically, the choice does not have to be between
Chloe’s or her mom’s. Chloe’s interest is in the arts; her mom’s interest is
for her to have a well-paying career. Chloe could choose to meet both
interests by enrolling in an advertising arts program. A career in the
advertising arts is both artistically inclined and financially rewarding.

Would you rather choose to marry for love or money?

This is a classic non-dilemma. Old movies frequently have the heroine

choosing between a dashing, young indigent and a cold, aloof millionaire.
In real life, one can choose to develop a caring, loving relationship with a
person you can build a comfortable life.
 When investing in a restaurant business, it is better to put up a fine-
dining restaurant rather than a fast-food outlet.

Making business decisions requires an open and creative mind. There are
numerous business models in this industry other than fine-dining and fast-
food, such as bistros, buffets, diners, etc. Innovations are adopted that
combine the best characteristics of those existing. What appears to be an
either-or decision requires thinking out of the box.

If my son loved me, he would do as I ask and join the priesthood.

But he did not do as I asked. Therefore, he doesn't love me!

A thinly-veiled manipulative tactic by some of the people we most care

about sometimes equates a personal choice with a show of familial love.
The choice of vocation or calling cannot signify proof of love or loyalty.
The very choice on this basis negates the nature of the choice as a vocation.
Personal choice and family love cannot be juxtaposed against each other. A
son can still love his parents whatever vocation he chooses.
In each of these examples, there is always another alternative, although
there is an implicit false premise that only the two choices exist – the black
and the white – and that they are mutually exclusive.

Addressing The Fallacy

The fallacy can be easily detected by the either-or premise laid. When faced
with this argument, examine closely whether the choices truly exclude each
other and if there are no other alternatives available. This will open one’s
eyes to many other possible decisions.
The Black-and-White fallacy involves two extremes and the gray area in
between. It is often confused with the next fallacy, and we will explain how
they differ.

8. Middle Ground
When someone argues that the so-called “middle ground” between two
extremes is correct simply because it is somewhere between the extremes.
The claim about the middle ground is best is not based on the superior merit
of that middle alternative over the extremes. Rather, it is a compromise
between them with possibly less merit. It is offered as the best choice under
the presumption that advocates of the extreme alternatives may find it
acceptable for all.

Vincent likes Annie, who dances ballet in the theatre. But

Vincent’s mom wants to match him with Delia, the owner of a
local restaurant. To settle the matter, Vincent’s dad introduced him
to Angela, a dancer at a bar-and-grill.

Vincent’s dad erroneously presumes that Vincent likes Anna because she
dances, and his mom prefers Delia because she works in the restaurant
business. He is oblivious to the type of dance or the nature of the restaurant
job. He does not think that the best choice may actually be Annie, who
Vincent may like for her many other qualities.

Andrew is a Republican who felt he could not tolerate a Democrat

governor. His wife, Priscila, is a Democrat who felt she could not
tolerate a Republican governor. To keep the peace, they decided to
vote for the Independent candidate.

The best choice for governor should be the candidate most qualified to
discharge the office’s duties; this should be the premise when deciding the
elected official. Therefore, choosing based on the party does not guarantee
the best choice. It is possible that one of the other major party candidates
would have made a better choice.

Bruno used to drink ten bottles of beer a day. After ten years of
this, he got sick and required angioplasty to open up an artery. The
doctor gave him strict orders not to drink a single drop ever again
because it was bad for his health. When Bruno got home, he
thought to himself, “I’m afraid to die, but I can’t go without beer!”
So, he decided to drink just five bottles a day.
In many medical cases, doctors will allow patients some leeway in alcohol
consumption, but they will recommend complete abstinence in serious
cases. Strict orders from a doctor allow for no compromise for the good of
the patient. Bruno did not understand that the middle position in this case –
from the doctor’s advice not to drink a single drop to his former ten bottle
consumption daily – or five bottles a day, is an unacceptable decision.
The Middle Ground fallacy and Black-and-White fallacy are similar as far
as they both involve either choosing one of the extremes or a compromise
between them. The difference is that in the black-and-white fallacy, the
middle choice may be the best, while in the Middle Ground fallacy, one of
the extremes is likely the better choice

Addressing The Fallacy

The middle ground fallacy is also easy to spot because the proposition
involves a compromise between two alternative extreme positions. The
compromise is patently inadequate or inappropriate to address the issue
raised. The decision was made for no other reason than that the choice was
the middle ground. To address this fallacy, analyze the choices on their
merits, and any compromise made should consider the merits.

9. False Cause
The false cause fallacy exists in arguments where the logical connection
between the premises and the conclusion is an imaginary link. There are
three types of false-cause fallacies based on three types of erroneous logical
connections.

9.1 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (“After This, Therefore Because Of This”)

After every thunderstorm, the grass in the golf course looks

greener, therefore, thunderstorms cause the grass to be greener.
It is not actually the thunderstorms per se that make the grass greener, but
the grass was watered. Turning on the sprinkler systems will typically have
the same outcome.

She throws up after every public speech she makes; therefore

making speeches cause her to throw up.

It is not the speech that makes her throw up, but the stress she feels that
makes her feel nauseous after every public presentation. She may benefit
from some professional advice or public speaking classes to0, or undertake
some mental exercises to destress before her speech, but she should not
avoid her speaking engagements.

After the Aztecs performed rituals offering human sacrifices to the

gods, their harvests were bountiful. Therefore, the sacrifices
brought the bountiful harvests.

The concurrence between sacrificial offerings and the bountiful harvests is

circumstantial since agricultural science has already laid the requisites for a
more bountiful harvest. Human sacrifice does not influence harvest
productivity, and it is an unnecessary and horrendous waste of human life.

My office rival Sandra gave the boss a nice Christmas gift, and in
January, she was promoted. Wow, that gift sure paid a lot of
dividends!

The gift Sandra gave and her subsequent promotion may or may not have a
causal relation, but no conclusion is possible absent substantial proof.
Sandra may have been in line for a promotion for years based on her good
work. To judge that she was promoted just because of the gift is mean-
spirited and in poor taste.

9.2 Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (“With This, Therefore Because Of This”)
 When dogs go for a walk, they poop on the sidewalk; therefore, it
is the walk that causes them to poop.

Going for a walk may provide dogs the exercise they need to relieve
themselves, but dogs are known to relieve themselves even when they are
confined to closed spaces. Some dogs don’t relieve themselves at all during
walks. It is not the walk that causes the evacuation but the dog’s own bodily
functions.

When John plays music while fishing, he catches fish, playing the
music attracts fish so John could catch them.

Music may or may not influence the fish, but to conclude, this would
require scientific research possible with the help of an experiment. There
are too many factors present in the outdoors that influence fishing. What
can be determined for certain is whether John enjoys the music while he
goes fishing because John can respond concerning how he feels about the
music. Otherwise, there is no logical link between the music and the
number of fish caught.

While traveling in their RV, a couple’s dog kept howling in his

traveling case. They thought that the dog was disturbed by the trip
and did not enjoy riding along. It took the dog whisperer to
convince the couple that the wife Ana’s anxiety was causing the
dog’s distress.

People often mistakenly interpret their dog’s actions depending on how she
reacts to ongoing stimuli. However, dog behaviorists and psychologists
explain that dogs act the way they do in response to their owner’s emotions.
The relationship between a dog and its master is not common knowledge,
so an expert may sometimes need to explain the truth to dispel laymen’s
misconceptions.

9.3 Ignoring Common Cause

This fallacy refers to the belief that one thing caused something while
ignoring the possibility that another thing may have caused both things.

I thought that the roosters’ crowing in the morning wakes the rest
of the farm animals up. But the last rooster died, and all the
animals woke up anyway. So, the rising sun wakes all the animals
up on the farm, including the roosters.

It is a charming element in stories about farm life that attributes the waking
of the animals to the cock’s crow. The truth is that diurnal animals will
wake with the sunrise, whether the rooster crows or not.

Rising inflation caused interest rates to rise. Actually, economic

policies tend to cause both inflation and interest rates to fluctuate.

Economic analysts expect interest rates to rise when inflation rates go up.
This is true because the monetary authority uses its policies to control the
money supply. But there have been times when increasing inflation does not
result in increasing interest rates. Economic indicators respond to the effects
of broad economic policies.

The homicide rate is increasing, which the mayor blames on the

rise in illegal firearms in the city. She should admit that they are
both the result of poor law enforcement under her watch.

This fallacy is independent of people’s views on gun control. The clue lies
in the words of the argument itself. Both homicide and the possession of
illegal firearms are against the law. The number of illegal firearms is not the
ultimate cause of the rise in homicides, which could be carried out by
means other than a gun. But both point to lax law enforcement, which is the
true cause of the rising crime rate.

Addressing The Fallacy

The false cause fallacy can be difficult to identify because for some cases,
the subject may be nuanced and require special knowledge (e.g., dog
psychology and economics in the previous examples). Sometimes, they are
easy to detect because they openly defy logic (e.g., human sacrifice). To
address false cause fallacies involving difficult issues or claims, you must
do some research and consult reliable experts about the true causes of some
phenomena. Combine both logic and information to resolve a false cause
fallacy.

10. Red Herring

This fallacy occurs when the arguer throws out an irrelevant issue to distract
and confuse the listener into agreeing with the claim. The name comes from
a practice escaping prisoners allegedly did during prison breaks. They threw
the odorous red herrings in different directions to distract the chasing dogs
away from their human scent and off their trail. In this fallacy, the red
herring is the irrelevant issue [45].

Ian was caught driving the wrong way down a one-way street.
Oblivious of the nearby street signs, Ian’s response to the arresting
officer was, “But officer, I did not know this was a one-way
street.” The officer asked for his driver’s license, which turned out
to be expired. “Really? I was not aware!” Finally, the officer told
Ian that the car he was driving was reported stolen. “No, you don’t
say! I borrowed this car from my friend, but I just forgot to ask his
permission.”

All three reasons Ian gave were red herrings. First, ignorance of the law
excuses no one. Second, all drivers should be responsible for their
documents. Third, possessing another person’s property without permission
creates a presumption of theft. So, all three reasons given by Ian are
irrelevant to his defense.
Here are other common red herring fallacies.

Teacher, the dog ate my homework.

The dog eating one’s homework is irrelevant. Prudence dictates one should
always have a copy for submission. No homework still means no grade.

I’m sure there is no global warming, The ice age we learned about
in the seventies hasn’t even come yet.

One scientific theory’s validity cannot hinge on the validity of another,

possibly irrelevant, scientific theory. Citing one debunked theory to
disprove another theory is a red herring.

Hollywood types are not trustworthy. Actors and actresses know

how to pretend, so they can make you believe anything.

The artistic portrayal of other people is not tantamount to deception and

therefore is irrelevant to weighing the trustworthiness of people.

When the majority of Marvel superheroes were killed off in

Avengers: Infinity War [46], there was a spike in grief counseling
sessions by fans upset with the demise of their favorite stars.
Therefore, films with tragic endings are unhealthy for the viewing
public and should be outlawed by media regulators.

Confusion of on-screen personas and the actors who play them happen
more frequently now that visual entertainment has approached new heights
in realism. But avid fans possibly take “suspension of belief” to extremes.
Using transient abnormal reactions to justify censorship of the media is a
red herring.

Addressing The Fallacy

Since a red herring aims to distract and confuse, resist being distracted and
confused. You should suspect a red herring when you feel that the argument
makes no sense. Since the issue the arguer raises makes no sense, ignore it
altogether and go straight to a resolution. (The officer in the first example
should simply give Ian a ticket.) You do not need to argue down a foolish
proposition.

11. Slippery Slope

The slippery slope fallacy argues that taking one small step, although
seemingly harmless, would eventually lead one to increasingly harmful
situations. This is why the first step should not be taken at all. The “slippery
slope” is that unavoidable path towards more danger, even when there may
be no strong reason for this to happen [45].

Marijuana is a gateway drug. Once you get used to it, you’ll look
for methamphetamine, cocaine, then heroin, in search of new
highs.

Cannabis is not justified as a gateway drug. The research established that

the vast majority of those who used marijuana does not necessarily progress
to more potent substance abuse [47].

Don’t even think that it’s okay to tell white lies. You’ll get used to
telling bigger and bigger lies until you can’t tell the truth anymore.

Some research tends to support this, but research also suggests social lying
(white lies), which is sometimes resorted to because people fear inflicting
emotional harm with an honest but negative comment [48]. Compassion is
the driver for some white lies, suggesting that people cease to lie in other
situations where the altruistic motivation is absent.

We should guard our liberties against encroachment by an

increasingly tyrannical government. Today, it’s masks and
lockdowns. Tomorrow they’ll come after our freedom of speech
and religion. We should not give an inch.
This rather dramatic suggestion of masks gradually encroaching upon the
eventual abolition of the bill of rights is somewhat far fetched but not
entirely irrelevant. It is a slippery-slope fallacy because of its allegation that
wearing a mask (i.e., to avoid disease contamination) will eventually lead to
dictatorship, a speculation without reliable proof,

Addressing The Fallacy

A slippery slope fallacy may be countered by proving that the alleged future
outcome is not the necessary conclusion. Research, such as the survey
conducted for the use of cannabis or narration of past events that ended up
with different results, may rebut the fallacious argument.

12. False Analogy

This type of fallacy draws a false comparison between two things. It states
that if A and B are the same regarding a certain quality, they must also be
the same regarding other qualities. The next three arguments are false
analogy fallacies because the criterion for comparison does not support the
conclusion.

Timmy and Tommy are both Navy Seals. Tommy is a good

husband and father. That means Timmy will likewise be a good
husband and father.

Timmy and Tommy being Navy Seals may mean they are both well-trained,
but this has no bearing on their inclinations for marriage and family.

Filipinos and Indonesians are both warm, hospitable Asians.

Filipinos are mostly Catholic. Indonesians are, therefore, mostly
Catholic, too.

Filipinos and Indonesians are closely related ethnically and culturally, but
their historical difference resulted in Indonesia being mostly Muslim and
the Philippines being predominantly Catholic.

Aspirin is a French invention. So was the guillotine. Aspirin is

beneficial to mankind; therefore, the guillotine must also be just as
beneficial to mankind.

Inventions made in the same country may be good or bad depending on

their use. Aspirin is a medicine to alleviate pain, while the guillotine is an
instrument for mass executions.
The false analogy can refer to two items or persons in the same category but
with different levels of the same characteristic. The analogy fails because a
different reason underlies the same thing being compared.

Dr. Phillip caught his student Jill opening her handbook during a
test. He called her attention and asked her why she was cheating.
“I’m not cheating, Doctor. When I was your intern, I noticed that
you consulted your handbook when you wrote a prescription for a
patient. Since you’re already a doctor but still have to read your
handbook, then I think I should be able to do the same since I am
still a student and much less knowledgeable than you.”

Dr. Phillip consulting his handbook is an act of diligence to ensure that he is

providing the right treatment for his patient. That is part of due diligence.
Jill, on the other hand, is a student who is taking an exam to test her
knowledge. Therefore, Dr. Phillip is right to prohibit her from consulting
her handbook because it will defeat the purpose of the test. Their purposes
for doing the same are not comparable.

My wife forbids me from drinking because she says alcohol is the

drink of the devil. I don’t see what’s wrong with it. Our parish
priest is a saint compared to me, and he drinks wine in front of the
whole congregation every Sunday.

The husband drinks wine as an act of self-indulgence. The priest drinks the
wine during mass as part of the celebration of a religious sacrament. The act
of drinking wine in the two cases is not comparable.

Addressing The Fallacy

Again, it might not be easy to spot a false analogy fallacy because you will
need to analyze the thing being compared. If the criteria for comparison are
not relevant to the conclusion, then it is a false analogy and disregarded.

13. Sunk Cost Fallacy

The term “sunk cost” in economic terms refers to an investment that has
already been made. The sunk cost fallacy pertains to a person’s behavior
due to investing time, effort, or money on something [49]. The conclusion
they arrive at is for them to “get their money’s worth,” to try to derive the
value of what they had invested even if it may put them at a further
disadvantage.
Another name for this fallacy is the Concorde Fallacy. It is an open
reference to the Concorde supersonic airliner whose project proponents
continued to pursue even though the future returns were bound to be
unstable [50]. Sunk cost relates to loss aversion (the psychological pain of
incurring a loss) and status quo bias (the urge to keep things as they are)
[51].

Chris already spent a lot of money dating Shiela in terms of fancy

lobster dinners, Broadway plays, and expensive gifts. He now
expects her to accept his marriage proposal because he deserves it,
after all the money and time he gave her.

The fallacy in this argument rests in the implication that Shiela owes it to
Chris to accept his proposal because he already spent a large sum in
courting her. However, the true justification for accepting the proposal
should be her willingness to become his spouse. A variation of this case is
more sinister:
 Ron is going out on a hot new date. He’s going to treat her to a
movie, a lobster dinner, and expensive drinks. He’s hoping that
he’ll get his money’s worth if she invites him up afterward.

Courting expenses should not be relevant to the acceptance of a more

permanent relationship. Even more so, the price of a date should not be the
reason to expect an after-date romance.

Randy bought a membership in a resort hotel where he agrees to

pay a fixed amount to use the property for two weeks a year. At
first, he thought this was a good idea. Later on, Randy felt that he
did not want to vacation in the same place every year, or even
vacation. But since he already paid for it, Randy continued staying
in that resort home for two weeks every year.

Randy has several options, such as exchanging this membership with others
selling off his share at a slight discount if he wanted to. But Randy wanted
to get the value of his money and so went on vacations he did not really
want.

Despite having tried the catering business for a year, it was obvious
that this was a failing venture from the start. Still, Alice insisted on
pushing on, reasoning she still wanted to recover what she already
invested.

This last situation is much the same as the Concorde project, where the
project proponents refuse to give up on the dream. Alice refuses to admit
that the business was a bad idea and still looks to recover though it is highly
unlikely.
Sunk cost fallacies are relatively easy to identify because they involve
investing some discernible value in terms of time, money or effort, and
refusing to take a loss on it when that would have been a more sensible
decision. However, the sunk cost dilemma is not as easy to resolve because
it is essentially behavioral.
Addressing The Fallacy
The best decision-making guide to avoid getting caught up in a sunk cost
fallacy trap is to set a cut-loss limit when investing, and having the
discipline to follow this plan if it materializes. A cut-loss limit is a point at
which one is willing to assume a loss – 20% of the investment value, one
year into the venture, or any measure in time and resources. Having set this,
one should develop the resolve to cut clean when that point is reached, and
not look back in regret.

14. Appeal To The People

This type of fallacy relies on the listeners’ desire to be associated with a
large group of people or people of a particular type as the basis for
persuasion. There are three such fallacies: the Bandwagon Fallacy, Appeal
to Vanity, and Appeal to Snobbery, but the Bandwagon Fallacy is the more
popular of the three [52].

14.1 Bandwagon Fallacy

As the name suggests, this fallacy seeks to persuade the listener to accept a
claim because many others accept it.

The year’s best-selling car in the United States is the Ford F-Series,
so you should consider buying one.

Purchasing a vehicle is expensive. Therefore, the buyer should be guided by

the reason for the purchase when choosing what to buy. Just citing it as the
best-selling car does not say anything about cost-effectiveness,
performance, or special features (i.e., four-wheel drive) that the owner
might particularly like.

Everybody uses credit cards for online transactions these days, so it

must be pretty safe.
Not everybody uses credit cards, and in certain applications, it is not safe,
as the rising instances of card shows. The popularity of a particular service
or product does not prove it is safe, therefore, precautions must be ensured.

14.2 Appeal To Vanity

When the argument associates the claim with a preferred status or lifestyle,
it is an Appeal to Vanity.

Men who lift weights and build their muscles attract more women
at the beach. If you want to be a ladies’ man, do gym workouts
three times a week.

A specified frequency of gym workouts does not guarantee that a man will
attract more women. Many women are attracted to men who are smart,
charming, and amiable. A well-defined physique may be an image that a
gym enthusiast may work towards as its own reward.

If you eat only plant-based food and avoid meat, you will not only
become healthier but happier. There are benefits to becoming a
vegetarian.

Slim and healthy is an image one can work towards, but it is the person’s
disposition that will eventually determine whether or not he/she will be
happy.

14.3 Appeal to Snobbery

Another common argument links the claim to being a part of an elite group.
This is known as Appeal to Snobbery.

A graduate from Harvard is respected as an intellectual giant,

therefore, I will go there for my college degree.
The choice of school should depend on the enrollee’s selected degree and
his/her parent’s ability to pay. Going to an expensive school for bragging
rights is impractical and unwise.

You should accept his marriage proposal. He is the prince, so you

will be a princess and live happily ever after.

Agreeing to marry to gain a title does not bring happiness. This has been
born out of several real-life personalities. The conclusion does not logically
follow the premise.
Appeal to Vanity and Appeal to Snobbery are quite similar, but they differ
in intention. The Appeal to Snobbery aims to convince the listener to
acquire a desirable status by joining an elite group. In contrast, the Appeal
to Vanity aims more to convince the listener to adopt a desirable lifestyle.

Addressing The Fallacy

The appeal to people or popularity fallacy is misleading because it
substitutes a reference group’s opinion for our own. It implies that we
cannot decide for ourselves, so we accept others’“better sense” to decide for
us. When faced with this argument, we must decide what degree we wish to
be defined by that reference group. The best choice is, always, to decide
according to our best lights.

15. Straw Man

This fallacy gives the illusion of refuting the proposition being made when
the argument covertly replaces the original proposition with another,
weaker proposition (“the straw man”) and attacks that instead. This leaves
the original proposition cunningly unaddressed.

15.1 Distortion
Distortion substitutes the real issue with an entirely different and unfounded
issue that totally misrepresents the situation.

Your daughter Daisy complimented my son Robert on his family’s

history and status. She obviously wants to marry my son because
he comes from a rich and socially respected family. She is merely
interested in our wealth and fame. Therefore, this wedding should
not push through.

Many parents in families of high social stature have made this straw man’s
argument. The arguer confounds the genuine respect and appreciation
shown by Daisy with the accusation of having a shallow interest in their
social standing and affluence. By ascribing this malicious intention to
Daisy, Robert’s parents can make their objection to the wedding more
acceptable.

Arlyne wanted to join the volleyball team, but her mom informed
the coach that she does not have her parents’ permission. “Her arm
was fractured when she was younger, and her doctor advised
against her playing competitively until her bones are stronger.”
When her coach told Arlyne, she vented her anger against her
mother. “You’re always against everything I want. You just don’t
want me to be happy!”

Parents, as a rule, want their children to pursue their dreams, but

occasionally there is a good reason for them to call a halt. Older children
may feel resentful when their elders tell them, “No,” and lash out by
distorting the issue and painting their parents as domineering. This makes
them feel justified in their rebellion.

15.2 Oversimplification
For this straw man, the larger issue becomes minimized to cover only a
portion of it or only one of many contributory factors,
 McDonald’s serves very hot coffee. My client positioned the coffee
cup between her knees as she took the lid off her coffee cup. The
scalding hot coffee spilled on her, and she had third-degree burns
requiring a visit to the emergency room. The warning sign printed
on the side of the cup is so tiny that anyone can hardly see it, but it
proves McDonald’s knows its coffee is very hot. The accident is,
therefore, McDonald’s fault.

In this instance, many contributing factors led to the customer’s injury. The
lawyer arguing the case disregards his client’s lack of care and her failure to
take precautions, instead of simplifying the issue to McDonald’s making the
coffee too hot. It is more complicated because the customer’s negligence
contributed to the accident.

To determine custody of the children in a divorce proceeding, the

parent who is better off financially and has a steady source of
income should be given sole custody of the children. It is for the
children’s benefit.

The complex considerations involved in parental custody include the

children’s welfare, the parties’ parental skills, their availability to tend to
the children, the proximity of the residence to school and hospital,
community conditions for raising children, etc. Making it a matter of who
has more money is an oversimplification of a complicated decision.

15.3 Overextension
Whereas oversimplification reduces the scope of the issues involved,
overextension includes issues related but not relevant to the true issue
involved to direct the cause elsewhere.

When the suspect was a boy, he was abandoned by his parents. He

became a ward of the state and transferred from one foster home to
another. He did not receive the proper upbringing and moral
 instruction that all children are entitled to. Now that he has
committed a crime, it is not his fault but the fault of the state.

The failures of the foster care system do not negate the personal
responsibility of all mature individuals over their own actions. Others have
gone through the same system and emerged as responsible adults, even
taking the initiative to reform the system based on their experiences [53].
The suspect in the above case remains culpable.

Modern high-rise buildings are energy inefficient and, therefore,

contribute significantly to the city’s carbon footprint, a major cause
of climate change. Therefore, the city council should order a
retrofitting of all its high-rise buildings. Its energy sources should
use only solar and wind.

In a case of overreach, new regulations should not work retroactively to

include changes to structure compliant with the code existing at the time. It
becomes a penalty to property owners who will need to undertake
expensive repairs for no fault on their part.

Addressing The Fallacy

To identify a straw man fallacy, remember a fine line between a reasonably
reformulated argumentative criticism and a strategically concocted straw
man [54]. The arguer misrepresents the opponent’s strong proposition and
substitutes it with a weak one. The arguer successfully attacks the weaker
proposition while ignoring the original claim. Distortion,
oversimplification, or extension beyond the claim’s original limits results in
duplicity [29].

16. Appeal To Force

The Appeal to Force is similar to Appeal to Fear, except that in the former,
the arguer threatens the harm, while in the latter the fear is inspired by a
source other than the arguer.
Strictly speaking, an Appeal to Force is not a fallacious argument or an
argument at all [55] because it does not rely on logic but coercion. However,
it rightly earned its place among the fallacies because it effectively wins
arguments when the side threatening force is losing the logical debate.

Wally told Ida that if she insists on working as an airline attendant,

he will call the wedding off.

From an independent perspective, this is an appeal for force. Deciding to

marry should be based on whether two people feel so strongly about each
other to want to live their lives together “for better or for worse, for richer
or poorer, in sickness and in health,” so what their occupations are should
not matter to each other.
The threat is, therefore, for Wally to force Ida to do what he wants.
However, if Wally were to issue such a groundless threat, then this gives Ida
a reason to call off the wedding herself. Obviously, Wally is not into it “for
better or worse.”

You better believe that climate change exists, or we will put you on
social media as a denier [56].

This particular appeal to force applies to nearly all unpopular acts any
person with a social media presence may commit. Online bullying has
become an effective threat that can “persuade” anybody to comply even if
the appeal goes unsaid.

In the sixties, we strictly complied with our father’s orders, or else

he threatened to spank us with his leather belt.

The threat of corporal punishment is an Appeal to Force as children could

not question parental authority. Logic does not play a role in this type of
strict upbringing.
The threat of force mustn’t be the one that is reasonable or normal to expect
in light of the premise. If the “threat” is actually a fact or reasonable
consequence of the conclusion, then the argument becomes logical. The
following are examples of such non-fallacies.

I am an IRS agent. Make sure to report all your income, or I will

have to come after you.
You have to submit your thesis before starting the Christmas break,
or I will give you a failing grade.
If you don’t brush your teeth every day, tooth decay will set in. I’ll
have to take you to the dentist, who will have to pull out all your
rotting teeth!

Addressing The Fallacy

This fallacy can be identified by the nature of the act the arguer threatens to
inflict upon the listener. The consequence of non-compliance or failure to
agree has no logical link to the argument. The only way to counter the
fallacy is to use logical reasoning to explain why the agreement is
impossible. Remember, though, that standing your ground may result in the
infliction of the harm threatened. If the risk is great and the harm is severe,
recourse to a legal remedy might be necessary.

17. Fallacy Fallacy

Also known as the Argument from Fallacy, this fallacy relies on the
justification that since the claim was argued poorly (i.e., the argument rests
on a fallacy), that the claim itself is wrong when in fact, it may be right.

Cecilia told Susan that turmeric tea cured her arthritic knees, but
Susan later found out that Cecilia had knee surgery. Susan now
believes that turmeric tea really has no benefit for arthritis.
The fallacious assertion is that Cecilia’s knees healed completely due to
turmeric. This is an overstatement, as turmeric reasonably claims only to
alleviate, not cure, the condition. Susan commits another fallacy in
completely denying any benefits turmeric may have.

Alan wanted a dog. His parents heard that dogs make good pets
because some dogs, like Yorkshire terriers, don’t cause asthma.
They got Alan a French bulldog, which unfortunately worsened his
asthma. The parents decided that dogs do not make good pets after
all.

The claim is that dogs make good pets, which is true since dogs are man’s
best friend. The initial fallacy is that dogs make good pets because they
don’t cause asthma. This is a hasty generalization fallacy because only
some dogs are hypoallergenic.
The fallacy fallacy is that simply because it is not true that all dogs don’t
cause asthma, then all dogs don’t make good pets. Sadly, this unsound
reasoning may deny Alan the love of a dog he may have dearly wanted.

Addressing The Fallacy

Fallacy fallacy is a type of fallacy that logic enthusiasts are prone to fall for.
Those who are aware of fallacies may tend to focus on identifying fallacies
and, finding some, may dismiss the conclusion as false even if it may be
true,
To counter the fallacy fallacy, identify why the original argument is
fallacious and address the flaw in its logic. If this original fallacy came
from you, then acknowledge that it is logically flawed. Then you should
show that the fallacious reasoning does not negate or invalidate the
principal claim in the original argument. The next step would be to retract
the fallacious claim in the original argument, leaving the valid conclusion
intact.
Bringing It All Together
The number and variety of fallacies we have encountered in this short
discussion demonstrate how common fallacies are and how frequently we
encounter them. These are but a few of the hundreds of possible logical
errors identified by the scholars of logic.
It is impossible to remember them all, and even if we do, we may not be
able to identify them as quickly as we encounter them. Being aware of only
a fraction of them and practicing as much as possible in spotting them daily
will nevertheless hone our skills in thinking, discussing, and deciding.

Action Steps
Informal fallacies are everywhere in popular literature. Choose an article or
two from a favorite magazine, online website, or the opinion or society
page of a newspaper. Scan the article while applying the following steps,
devised by Vaidya and Erickson [57], and see how many fallacies you can
find.
1. Examine if the passage contains an argument; if so, state the conclusion.
Knowing the conclusion is the first step to analyzing its logical supports.
2. Determine if the passage contains a controversial claim. The current
debate about them usually suggests the issues around controversies.
3. Examine whether any of the central claims rely on expertise. Gather the
established expert knowledge and opinions as well as matters that are still
unsettled.
4. Explore whether options or alternatives suggested by the passage are
exhaustive.
5. Consider carefully whether any of the words may signify different things.
Watch out for double meanings and words used in different contexts.
Remember, some passages contain more than one fallacy, so patience and
persistence will go a long way.
How Well Can You Spot The Fallacy?
In the following exercise, five situations describe arguments that may or
may not be fallacious. Analyze whether a fallacy is involved, and if so,
which type of fallacy. Explain your answer. The solution appears at the end
of this chapter.
A. They said a flu epidemic is currently spreading over the country.
However, in our town, there is no sign of the flu. Therefore, it is not true
that there is such an epidemic.
B. The family is the building block of a well-founded society because a
healthy society’s foundation rests on communities composed of strong
families.
C. Every time I visit my Chinese friend’s store, his business quickly picks
up after, so he calls me his lucky charm and invites me to visit often.
D. The same company that handles the Disney theme parks’ advertising
campaign also does the advertising for the carnival rides in our town. I am
sure that our rides are just as safe as those in the Disney parks.
E. John called in sick, so his boss Alan gave him the day off. At noon, Alan
went to the nearby mall for lunch. There he saw John with his wife. Alan
asked a little pointedly, “John, I thought you were sick.” John replied, “My
doctor’s clinic is on the fourth floor.”

Moving On
Informal fallacies result from unsound reasoning just as formal fallacies
result from construction errors in framing arguments. Many logical
mistakes are impulsive - like parents’ mental panic attacks when their pre-
schooler mentions “sex.” But some are wickedly intended to mislead and
confuse. Therefore, it is important to know how to avoid such errors, which
the final chapter will discuss.

Key Takeaways
 Informal fallacies are created by unsound reasoning.
Some fallacies rely on weak evidence, such as appeals to emotion,
authority, and the people.
Others are fallacies of weak induction, such as straw men, red
herrings, middle ground, and false causes.
Still, others are fallacies of ambiguity that make a weak connection
between premises and conclusion, such as begging the question,
slippery slopes, false analogy, and appeal to force.

Solution To The Exercise:

1. Appeal to Ignorance
2. Begging the Question
3. False Cause, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
4. False Analogy
5. No Fallacy
 6

MAKING THE CHANGE: HOW CAN WE BECOME

RATIONAL THINKERS?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-

witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but
the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent
man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a
shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.
—L T ,T K G W Y , . 49
[58]

I n the poem by John Godrey Sage, “The Blind Men and the Elephant”
[59], there were six men of Indostan who went to “see” their first

elephant. The fact that all of them were blind led to some interesting
outcomes when they encountered this magnificent beast. For those who are
unfamiliar with the story, here’s a quick summary.
The six men approached the elephant from six directions and therefore
touched different parts of its body. The first touched its broadside and said
that the elephant was like a wall. The second felt its tusk and pronounced
that it was like a spear. The third held its trunk and said it was like a snake,
and the fourth felt its knee and said it was like a tree. The fifth touched the
ear and announced that it was like a fan, and the sixth groped its swinging
tail and exclaimed that the elephant was like a rope.
To the six blind men of Indostan, the elephant was six different things. And
it is a good bet that none of them could convince the others that the elephant
was anything other than what they came to conclude for themselves.
Now, none of them were lying. They were very sincere because they based
their opinions on their first-hand experience. All of them perceived the
truth, but only a portion of it. None of them appreciated the whole truth, not
having had the opportunity to examine the whole elephant.
Leo Tolstoy was convinced that people whose minds resembled a blank
slate could be taught anything, but those who have their own experiences
would have difficulty accepting a different view from others. In short, we
are biased in favor of what we already know to be true. Overcoming that
bias requires evidence and logical persuasion, yet some prefer to cling to
their biases even with the best arguments.
But before we discuss biases, let’s recall the logical concepts in the previous
chapters.

Recalling The Key Concepts

Humans are rational beings. We use our reasoning to make sense of our
surroundings, and what we learn through reason we commit to memory.
Reasoning is instinctive and informal. Logic is systematic reasoning
according to the principles of validity. All people reason, but not all people
do it logically. Logic enables us to structure our reasoning into arguments,
composed of premises and a conclusion. Arguments are the means to
convey ideas logically. Their main goal is to persuade others of the truth of
one’s claim.
Not all arguments are valid, and even if they were not all valid arguments
are sound. Some arguments do not lead to the truth; they are fallacious.
Fallacies are defects in arguments that result from unsound reasoning. Some
fallacies are logical mistakes and are therefore unintentional. However,
some fallacies are devices unscrupulously employed by insincere arguers to
win the discussion but not seek the truth.
In the real world, our decision-making processes involve dealing with
arguments within ourselves and with other persons. We weigh the claims
and their proofs to resolve multiple levels of complex arguments. The
process is difficult and often confusing. We are often tempted to fall back
on past experiences and stock knowledge to make short-cuts in arriving at a
decision. It is in making such short-cuts that our biases take over, leading us
to often make the wrong decision.

Recognizing Our Biases

Thinking rationally involves consistently abiding by logical principles,
whether we do so intentionally or instinctively. Sometimes, we fail to apply
these principles due to biases that we are subject to. A few of them are
discussed here.

1. Confirmation Bias
This is one of the most common biases that we are all probably guilty of.
We tend to favor ideas that confirm our existing opinions and the
information we already accept as truth. It refers to “unwitting selectivity in
the acquisition and use of evidence,” an “unwitting molding of facts to fit”
one’s beliefs [60]. Philosophers and psychologists have determined that
people find it easier to accept claims that align more closely with what they
already believe to be true, rather than those propositions they want to be
false.
Confirmation bias in real-world contexts exists in the fields of policy
rationalization (politics), medicine, judicial reasoning, and science, among
others. For instance, traditional Chinese would prefer to be cured through
acupuncture and the application of Chinese herbs and medicines rather than
Western forms of treatment. Confirmation bias exists because people want
to believe, because their frames of reference are already conditioned, and
people have a pragmatic desire to avoid error [3].

2. First Impression Bias

This type of bias refers to “a limitation of human information processing in
which people are strongly influenced by the first piece of information that
they are exposed to, and they are biased in evaluating subsequent
information in the direction of the initial influence” [61]. Studies have
shown that first impressions are formed around certain constructs in social
cognition, such as character traits, trustworthiness, and competence; facial
appearance, and simple behaviors (e.g. judging one is possibly lazy or slow-
witted), or their goals, values, and beliefs.
In the real world, first impression bias is often manifested during the
personnel recruitment or hiring process. Employers tend to ask questions
that confirm their first impressions about the candidates and treat them
accordingly [62]. The way to avoid first impression bias is to suspend
judgment after the first few meetings and wait until all relative information
is available before concluding.

3. The Dunning-Kruger Effect

In 1999, Kruger and Dunning [63] observed that in many social and
intellectual domains, people generally have an overly favorable opinion of
their abilities. They suggest that this overestimation takes place partly
because those who are unskilled in such domains tend to carry a dual
burden. First, they reach faulty conclusions and make erroneous choices.
Second, they are unaware that they are doing so because their incompetence
hinders their metacognitive ability to realize it. “Metacognition” is
knowledge of one’s thinking and learning, an awareness of their own
higher-order thinking skills [64].
Most people are deficient in their metacognition that they exhibit a bias
towards the validity of their own erroneous beliefs. An example would be
students’ assessment of how they performed in an exam or class activity.
When they receive a failing grade, they are convinced it is unfair and argue
that they deserve a higher grade. To avoid the Dunning-Kruger bias, the
metacognitive competence of individuals may be improved by improving
their skills and recognizing their limitations in the specific domain.

4. Fundamental Attribution Error (Fae)

This type of bias is a social error involving an overestimation of an actor’s
personality while at the same time underestimating the situational factors
when trying to explain the cause of an event or behavior [65]. According to
the study by Berry, we tend to commit the FAE many times a day. A typical
example is when an employee comes late to work and is reprimanded by
her manager. That same manager arrives late at a subsequent meeting and
offers excuses for being late. More recently are the frequent occurrences of
officials chastising and sanctioning people in their jurisdictions who failed
to comply with local orders and who themselves are found violating the
same orders they were enforcing on their constituents.
The FAE is typically an error caused by somebody using limited
information to make judgments. There are several things one may do to
avoid the FAE. One is to list down five good qualities of the individual
towards whom you are beginning to feel resentful. Practice empathy by
discussing with other people about their lives and getting to know them
better. Broaden your perspective and examine the situation more closely
before passing judgment about the actors in it. Develop self-awareness and
objectivity in assessing behavior and happenings [66].

5. Decline Bias (Declinism)

This bias tends to view the past as overly positive and the present or future
in an extremely negative light. This bias is typically applied to one’s view
of a country, society, institution, or any similarly general context. Humans
have a propensity to focus more on negative information than positive
information, such as conveyed in the news, and this negativity shapes the
worldview of some people [67]. Declinism is a negativity bias, a feeling
shared by many that their society is in decline [68].
Part of declinism is the tendency to romanticize the past. Men and women
who grew up in the 50s and 60s may feel that men and women’s traditional
roles (men worked, women kept the home and raised the children) reflected
a much better time because lives were simpler. Today the opposite is likely
to happen, that women who chose to stay at home full time are scorned
because their gender is now expected to balance career and family.
The first step towards avoiding declinism is to be aware of our emotional
attachments to the past. From that awareness, a greater focus should be
devoted to the positive things in the present surroundings [69]. Go so far as
to make a list of how society is better now than in the past. When some
things are worse off today, keep a reminder that the difficulties today are
merely challenges, not a sign that an apocalypse is approaching.

6. Diagnostic Bias
Also known as diagnostic suspicion bias or provider bias, diagnostic bias
occurs when one’s perception, prejudice, or subjective judgment affects
one’s diagnosis. As its name suggests, this is a bias committed by medical
or health professionals. These are the professionals who diagnose illnesses
or injuries by examining the symptoms or diagnostic tests results.
Knowledge of exposure to some chemical agent or contagious disease are
examples of factors that may influence the perception of a physician in
making her diagnosis. She may schedule tests or look for specific
symptoms in that group that she would not normally do for a non-exposed
group [70].
The diagnostic bias is a specialized category that traces its causes back to
the more generic types of bias, including anchoring, availability,
confirmation, framing, and premature closure biases. The following are the
descriptions and corrective strategies for the types of bias that form the root
causes of diagnostic bias [71].
• Anchoring – Sticking with a diagnosis after it is debunked. The health
professional will insist on continuing treatment consistent with the first
diagnosis instead of adopting a treatment more appropriate to the real
malady. The corrective strategy is to examine the patient’s
unresponsiveness or seek new information to refine the original diagnosis.
• Availability – The professional refers to what most readily comes to mind.
The physician makes a diagnosis similar to that of a previous patient who
manifests the same symptoms. A more alert professional would know the
statistical likelihood and baseline prevalence of the diagnosed condition.
• Confirmation – Applied specifically to diagnostic bias, confirmation bias
refers to the preference for findings that support an already-suspected
diagnosis or strategy. For instance, urine test results that may indicate
another condition are taken to confirm the patient’s self-diagnosis of a
kidney infection. The countervailing strategy is to refer to an objective
source such as a diagnostic checklist) in evaluating how strongly the
diagnosis matches the technical findings.
• Framing – Refers to gathering or assembling elements that support a
particular diagnosis. An example is assuming that coronavirus symptoms in
a patient who recently came from the UK result from the more infectious
UK variant. The corrective strategy is to gather different perspectives by
expanding the patient’s history beyond recent events or validating clinical
methods rather than merely assuming.
• Premature closure – Consists of failing to seek more information after a
diagnosis is concluded. The illness or injury may have a subsequent
development, such as the occurrence of a second fracture after identifying
the first. The corrective strategy involves conducting a review of the case
and seeking the opinions of specialists in other fields (for instance,
radiology backup in the case of a fracture). It also helps to consult objective
resources – in this case, an orthopedic review that mentions a common
concomitant fracture [71].

How To Think Rationally By Avoiding Biases

1. Make it a habit to research. Look for evidence that disconfirms your
initial position.
2. Think of the problem on your own and create a tentative opinion before
consulting others. Do this to prevent being anchored to others’ ideas.
3. Think outside the box, and do not be limited by the status quo. However,
before disregarding the current system or situation, evaluate how elements
of the status quo may help or hurt your objectives. Avoid overstating the
cost of changing from the status quo.
4. Engage with people whose positions are contrary to yours. Consult
people with as many different ideas or opinions as possible, rather than
focusing on a group with homogeneous positions.
5. When working with other people, avoid being defensive and
argumentative when they have opinions that differ from your own. Seek a
Devil’s Advocate. Hear them out. Ask clarificatory and neutral questions.
Do not ask leading or confrontational questions.
6. When faced with a problem defined by another, do not merely accept the
initial frame in which it is construed. Try to reframe or turn the problem
around to view it from other angles. Try to adopt different perspectives.
Check to see if you are viewing the problem positively or negatively. Try to
be objective.
7. After reframing the problem, redefine it and discard the old problem. Use
the new, redefined problem to avoid digging yourself deeper into an
unnecessary commitment or emotional investment. Avoid making public
commitments.
8. If the problem is continuing or protracted, create a systematic or periodic
review process that allows for an “out” when you need to cut your losses or
admit a mistake. Keep in mind that situations may change over time, which
may affect the decisions you have made and will still make.
9. To avoid being overconfident in your initial decision, always begin by
considering the full range of values, the highest to the lowest possible, to
avoid being anchored to one option. Imagine circumstances that will result
in outcomes below your lowest estimate or above your highest estimate.
10. Document your decision-making process whenever possible to avoid
changes in memory recall. Gather logs, statistics, records of procedures
already undertaken, facts and details. They will help reconstruct your
decision-making when it is needed during a future review.
With what we have learned about biases, why are we predisposed to making
poor or bad decisions when we have the intellect to make good ones? The
answer is that humans are complex beings. Our psyche is the sum of our
cognitive faculties that includes our consciousness, memory, thinking,
perception, judgment, and language. It enables recognition, appreciation,
and imagination, processes feelings and emotions, and manifests through
actions and attitudes. People will think, feel, and act differently, according
to how they have processed their varied experiences, knowledge, and
information. The decisions we make are relative, so some are done
erroneously, while others turn out to be right.

Action Steps
In this chapter, we were introduced to several biases that we frequently
encounter. The following situations involve at least one type of bias. Could
you name which one? (Give it a good try before looking up the answers at
the end of the chapter).
1. Pamela arrived in class just as the teacher was handing out examination
questionnaires. Realizing she did not have the yellow pad paper required for
the test, she whispered to her seatmate Andrew if he had an extra sheet. The
teacher caught her whispering and immediately sent both Pamela and
Andrew to the principal’s office for cheating during an exam.
2. Francis was the third child to get sick in his family. His sisters just had
the flu, and when he came down with a fever the doctor dismissed it as a
matter of contagion. Francis was given medicine for the flu. After a week,
however, his condition worsened. He was brought to the hospital for some
tests. It was only then that the doctor discovered that Francis had the
dengue, and immediately ordered a plasma transfusion.
3. Vincent loved teaching. After he got his accreditation, he went back to
the little town he grew up in and applied to teach in the same high school he
went to. He was taken aback when he observed that the students were
rowdy and undisciplined. They no longer stood at attention to greet the
teacher and did not give due deference to the school officials. It was much
better during our time, Vincent thought.
4. Elsa was in line for a promotion, along with some other employees who
were similarly qualified for the position. Elsa was sure she would be
granted the position, but in the end, John was awarded the promotion for his
astute leadership abilities. Feeling betrayed, Elsa spread the rumor that the
company was biased against women and therefore promoted a man.
5. During Cecile’s first day in college, two classmates immediately showed
an interest in getting to know her better. Tom was athletic and a sharp
dresser, Bill looked dull and a bit nerdy. Cecile quickly favored Tom over
Bill because “he looks geared for success.” A decade after graduation, Tom
was a salesman in Bill’s billion-dollar cybernetics company.

Moving On
Tolstoy was keenly perceptive when he observed that simple-minded people
are easier to teach than those who are already knowledgeable. Biases are a
hindrance to the search for truth because they prevent us from accepting it
even if we find it. We must, therefore, vigilantly guard against biases in
ourselves and others. Unlike the six blind men of Indostan, we must
diligently gather and assess all relevant information and weigh our options
well before deciding.

Key Takeaways

Confirmation bias, the most common of biases, leads us to accept

information aligned with our own perception of the truth.
First impression bias limits information processing to the opinions
formed during the first encounter.
The Dunning Kruger Effect refers to people’s favorable estimation
of themselves during an event or encounter.
Fundamental Attribution Error overestimates an actor’s traits while
underestimating the situational factors.
Declinism sees the past favorably and believes society’s future is
headed toward a decline.
Practice caution and vigilance to avoid biases and think logically.

Solution To The Exercise

1. Fundamental Attribution Error
2. Diagnostic bias – confirmation bias
3. Declinism/Decline Bias
4.Dunning Kruger Effect
5. First Impression Bias
 AFTERWORD

We live in a confusing world that is burdened not only by information

overload but also opinion overload. The people we meet in person and
online are only too eager to convince us of what they believe in and what
they “know” to be true. We are too often swayed by the arguments they
make. “He sounded so credible!” “Her statements are so convincing!” That
is until the next credible and convincing argument comes along that
contradicts what went before.
This little book sought to candidly and concisely unlock the secrets to
logical reasoning and right thinking. Hopefully, it helps us win debates in
school, present our best arguments at work, and set our relationships to
rights with friends and families. But first and foremost, this book aims to
help us to make the best possible decisions when facing the commonplace
problems we encounter daily.
Throughout this book, we emphasized our minds’ inner workings when
faced with the logical proofs and the propositions they claim to support.
Why is this right and that wrong? How can something that seems initially
doubtful become acceptable once carefully examined?
Since humans are complex beings, our minds are sometimes predisposed to
rushing to judgment and making mistakes in the process. We arrive at the
wrong decisions because of biases, emotions, misconceptions, and false
presumptions. We tend to commit logical errors that we could avoid if we
were made aware of them.
Awareness of our propensity to commit logical errors is the first step
towards correct reasoning. The second is to gain familiarity with the tools
necessary to develop logical skills. This book acquainted us with these
tools. First is the classical laws of logic: the laws of identity, excluded
middle, non-contradiction, and sufficient reason. Next are the elements of
logical reasoning, which are claims, inference, and arguments, the latter
consisting of premises and conclusion. We gained acquaintance with the
types of arguments, valid and invalid, sound and unsound, deductive and
inductive. We came to understand why we would sometimes quarrel rather
than seek the truth.
Armed with these tools, we learned the two types of errors, Formal errors
violate the patterns of argument construction and render the argument
invalid. Informal errors are mistakes in reasoning, called fallacies, that
make an argument unsound. We then scrutinized six common types of
biases that hijack our thinking process. Finally, we discovered ways to
avoid these logical errors to arrive at better decisions.
Now that we have the fundamentals of logical thinking, we need to practice
them if we are to benefit the most from this knowledge. Reading the book is
easy. Applying what we learn from it is like learning to ride a bike. Our first
clumsy attempts will meet with bumps and scrapes as gravity pulls us back
to old and familiar habits. But like biking, once you learn how to do it, you
will never forget it. Between start and finish, what is indispensable is
practice, practice, practice. Recall the theory. Apply it to real-life situations.
Learn from it. And at the next encounter, use it. That is the secret of
learning how to think rationally to make logical decisions.
 ONE FINAL WORD FROM US

If this book has helped you in any way, we’d appreciate it if you left a review on Amazon. Reviews
are the lifeblood of our business. We read every single one and incorporate your feedback in
developing future book projects.

To leave an Amazon review simply click below:

(Or go to: smarturl.it/clfr or scan the code with your camera)
 CONTINUING YOUR JOURNEY

Those Who Keep Learning, Will Keep Rising In Life.

—C M (B ,I , W B ’ B
P )

The most successful people in life are those who enjoy learning and asking questions, understanding
themselves and the world around them.
We created the Thinknetic Community so that like-minded individuals could share ideas and learn
from each other.
It’s 100% free.
Besides, you’ll hear first about new releases and get the chance to receive discounts and freebies.
You can join us on Facebook by clicking the link below:

(Or go to www.facebook.com/groups/thinknetic or simply scan the code with your camera)

 REFERENCES

1. Bobzien, S. (2020) “Ancient Logic”, In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/sum2020/entries/logic-ancient/
2. Kraus, J. 2015 Rhetoric in European Culture and Beyond. Charles
University in Prague.
3. Patterson, R. (2020) “7 Ways to Improve Your Critical Thinking
Skills.” College Info Geek. https://collegeinfogeek.com/improve-
critical-thinking-skills/
4. Schwarz, B.B. and Asterhan, C. (2010) Argumentation and
Reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, and J.Kleine Staarman (Eds.),
Elsevier Handbook of Educational Psychology: New Perspectives
on Learning and Teaching. Elsevier Press
5. Dowden, B.H. (2017) Logical Reasoning. Open Library, California
State University,https://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/4/logical-
reasoning-archives/Logical-Reasoning-2020-05-15.pdf
6. “Argument mapping” (2020) HKU Philosophy Department,
University of Hong Kong.https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/
complex.php#:~:text=An%20(simple)%20argument%20is%
20a,complicated%20and%20involve%20extended%20reasoning
7. Schutt, R.K. (2018) Investigating the Social World: The Process
and Practice of Research. SAGE Publications
8. Bradford, A. (2017) “Deductive Reasoning vs Inductive
Reasoning”. Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/21569-
deduction-vs-induction.html
 9. “Deductive and Inductive Arguments” (2020) Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002.
https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
10. “Validity and Invalidity, Soundness and Unsoundness” (2020) An
Introduction to Philosophy. Stanford University. https://web.
stanford.edu/~bobonich/terms.concepts/terms.conc.main.html
11. DeMichele, T. (2017, June 15) “The Different Types of Reasoning
Methods Explained and Compared”. Fact/Myth. http://factmyth.
com/the-different-types-of-reasoning-methods-explained-and-
compared/
12. Schmidt, G. (2014) “Simple Answers” Edge.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25484
13. Cohen, P. (2011, June 14) “Reason seen more as weapon than path
to truth.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-
win-scholars-assert.html
14. Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason?
Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 34(2): 57-74
15. Walls, J. (2009). Half Broke Horses: A True-Life Novel. United
States: Scribner.
16. Kim V. (2016, October 10) Stereotypes, Bias, Prejudice, and
Discrimination: Oh My! Psych Learning Curve: Where Psychology
and Education Connect. American Psychological Association.
http://psychlearningcurve.org/stereotypes-bias-prejudice-and-
discrimination/
17. JD (2021) Three Ways to Spot Logical Fallacies. Sources of
Insight. https://sourcesofinsight.com/3-ways-to-spot-logical-
fallacies/
18. Pevernagie, E. (2007) Life Quotes and Paintings.
https://www.wattpad.com/554136351-life-quotes-and-paintings-of-
erik-pevernagie
19. Ri, Y-S. 2017 ‘Modus Ponents and Modus Tollens: Their Validity
/Invalidity in Natural language Arguments.’ Studies in Logic,
Grammar and Rhetoric. Vol 50, Issue 63, pp. 253-267.
20. Eschner, K. (2016, December 30) “The Story of the Real Canary in
the Coal Mine,” Smithsonian Magazine.https://www.
 smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/story-real-canary-coal-mine-
180961570/#:~:text=On%20this%20day%20in%201986,gases%
20before%20they%20hurt%20humans.&text=If%20the%
20animal%20became%20ill,a%20canary%20Haldane's%
20suggested%20solution%3F
21. Mosley, A. & Baltazar, E. (2019) An Introduction to Logic: From
Everyday Life to Formal Systems. Open Educational Resources:
Textbooks, Smith College, Northampton, MA.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/textbooks/1
22. Lu, Y. (2016) The Conjunction and the Disjunction Fallacies:
Explanation of the Linda Problem by the Equate-to-Differentiate
Model. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 50: 507-
531, DOI 10.1007/s12124-015-9314-6
23. Rice, S.M. (2015) Indispensable Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy
of the Undistributed Middle As a Mitigation Tool. Akron Law
Journals, 43(1):3
24. Funder, D.C. (1987) Errors and Mistakes: Evaluating the Accuracy
of Social Judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 10(2):75-90
25. Nikolova, H., Lamberton, C., & Haws, K.L. (2016) Haunts or
helps from the past: Understanding the effect of recall on current
self-control. Psychology, 26(2): 245-256.
26. Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. (2015) Emotion
and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology. 66:799-823
27. Finnell, M. (Producer) & Dante, J. (Director) (1984) Gremlins.
[Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros. and Amblin
Entertainment
28. “About Dairy Cows” (2021) Compassion in World Farming.
https://www.ciwf.com/farmed-animals/cows/dairy-cows/
29. Damer, T.E. (2009) Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide
to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 6 th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning
30. Conroy, J. (2007, September 24). “Probing Question: Is the
Farmers’ Almanac accurate?” Penn State News. Penn State. https://
news.psu.edu/story/141165/2007/09/24/research/probing-question-
farmers-almanac-accurate#:~:text=The%20Farmers'%20Almanac's
%20Web%20site,months%20in%20advance%20for %20seven
31. “History of the Old Farmer’s Almanac” (2016, August 14) The Old
Farmer’s Almanac. https://www.almanac.com/content/history-old-
farmers-almanac#
32. The Old Farmer’s Almanac (2021, February 16) The Old Farmer’s
Almanac. Retrieved 16 February 2021 from
https://www.almanac.com/
33. Van Eemeren, F.H. (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in
Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical
Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamin Publishing.
34. Frank, R.B. (2017) Hacksaw Ridge; The Conscientious Objector;
The Unlikeliest Hero: The Story of Desmond T. Doss,
Conscientious Objector Who Won His Nation’s Highest Military
Honor. Journal of American History, 104(1): 301-305.
35. Mechanic, B., Permut, D., Benedict, T., Currie, P., Davie, B.,
Oliver, B., & Johnson, W.D. (Producers) & Gibson, M. (Director)
(2016) Hacksaw Ridge [Motion picture]. United States: Summit
Entertainment and others
36. Sathe, V. (2017) Smaller But Not Secondary: Evidence of Rodents
in Archaeological Context in India. Ancient Asia, 8:6, pp.1-20,
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/aa.131
37. Zakir Hossain, M. (2009) “Why is interest prohibited in Islam? A
statistical justification.” Humanomics, 25(4): 241-253
38. Mowrey Admin (2017, February 14) “The Rule of 13: Why Isn’t
There a 13 th Floor?” Mowrey Elevator.
http://www.mowreyelevator.com/industry-updates/rule-13-isnt-
13th-floor/
39. Magnan, J. (2018) Appeal to Ignorance. Journal of International
Advanced Otology, 14(3):504-505. DOI: 10.5152/iao.2018.141118
40. Smith, W. (2021) “Flag of Western Australia.” Britannica.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/flag-of-Western-Australia
41. Taleb, N.N. (2007, April 22) “The Black Swan: The Impact of the
Highly Improbable”. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.
com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html
42. Suárez-Lledó, J. (2011) The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly
Improbable. Academy of Management Journal. 25(2):87-90,
doi:10.5465/amp.25.2.87
43. TSU Department of Philosophy (2021) “Begging the Question,”
Texas State University.https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/
resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html#:~:text=
The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,called%20arguing%
20in%20a%20circle
44. Grote, G. (1872) Aristotle. John Murray.
45. Dowden, B.H. (2020) Logical Reasoning. Philosophy Department,
California State University Sacramento
46. Feige, K. {Producer} & Russo, A. & Russo, J. (Directors) (2018)
Avengers: Infinity War [Motion Picture] United States: Marvel
Studios.
47. Legg, T.J. (2020, Feb. 26) “’Gateway Drug’ or ‘Natural Healer?’ 5
Common Cannabis Myths.” Healthline.
https://www.healthline.com/health/is-marijuana-a-gateway-drug
48. Lupoli, M.J., Jampol, L., & Oveis, C. (2017) Lying because we
care: Compassion increases prosocial lying. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General. 146(7): 1026–1053
49. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985), The psychology of sunk costs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35: 124-
1401026-1042
50. Roth, S., Robbert, T., & Straus, L. (2015) On the sunk-cost effect
in economic decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Business
Research. 8: 99-138
51. “Sunk Cost Fallacy” (2020) Behavioral Economics.https://www.
behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/
sunk-cost-fallacy/
52. Erickson, A. & Vaidya, A.J. (2011) Logical & Critical Reasoning:
Conceptual Foundations and Techniques of Evaluation. United
States. Kendall Hunt.
53. Johnson, C. & Hall-Lande, J. (2005/06) “Growing Up in Foster
Care: Carolyn’s Story.” Impact. 19(1): 1,36
54. Lewinski, M. (2011) Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the
Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation. Argumentation. 25:469. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9227-6
55. Wood, R. (2002) Critical Thinking.https://www.robinwood.com/
Democracy/GeneralEssays/CriticalThinking.pdf
56. Chen, J. (2021, February 23) “A Mom’s Research (Part 2): Texas
Freezing and Global Warming.” The Epoch Times.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-moms-research-part-2-texas-
freezing-and-global-warming_3705225.html?
utm_source=pushengage
57. Vaidya, A. & Erickson, A. (2011) Logical and Critical Reasoning.
Kendall Hunt, p.43
58. Tolstoy, L. (1894) The Kingdom of God is Within You. Cassell
Publishing Company
59. Saxe, J.G. (1872) “The Blind Men and the Elephant,” https://en.
wikisource.org/wiki/The_poems_of_John_Godfrey_Saxe/
The_Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant
60. Nickerson, R.S. (1998) Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous
Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2):
175-220
61. Lim, K.H., Benbasat, I., & Ward, L.M. (2000) The Role of
Multimedia in Changing First Impression Bias, Information
Systems Research, 11(2): 115-136
62. Okten, I.O. (2018, January 13) “Studying First Impressions: What
to Consider?” Association for Psychological Science.https://www.
psychologicalscience.org/observer/studying-first-impressions-
what-to-consider
63. 63. [63] Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999) Unskilled and unaware
of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead
to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(6): 1121-1134
64. Lai, E.R. (2011) Metacognition: A Literature Review. Pearson’s
Research Reports. https://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/
tmrs/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdf
65. Berry, Z. (2015) Explanations and Implications of the Fundamental
Attribution Error: A Review and Proposal. Journal of Integrated
Social Sciences, 5(1): 44-57
66. Healy, P. (2017, June 8) “The Fundamental Attribution Error: What
It Is and How to Avoid It.” Harvard Business School Online.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error
67. Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019) Cross-national evidence
of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news.
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America. 116(38): 18888-18892.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908369116
68. Elchardus, M. (2017) Declinism and Populism. Clingendael
Spectator 3, 71:2.https://spectator.clingendael.org/pub/2017/3/_/
pdf/IS-2017-3-elchardus.pdf
69. The Decision Lab (2021) “Why we feel the past is better compared
to what the future holds.” The Decision Lab.
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/declinism/
70. Banerjee, A., Pluddemann, A., & O’Sullivan, J. (2017) “Diagnostic
Suspicion Bias,” Catalogue of Bias.
https://catalogofbias.org/biases/diagnostic-suspicion-bias/
71. Wellbery, C. (2011) Flaws in Clinical Reasoning: A Common
Cause of Diagnostic Error. American Family Physician,
84(9):1042-1044.
 DISCLAIMER

Thе іnfоrmаtіоn соntаіnеd іn this book аnd іtѕ соmроnеntѕ, іѕ mеаnt tо

ѕеrvе аѕ a соmрrеhеnѕіvе соllесtіоn оf ѕtrаtеgіеѕ thаt thе аuthоr оf thіѕ
bооk hаѕ dоnе rеѕеаrсh аbоut. Summаrіеѕ, ѕtrаtеgіеѕ, tірѕ аnd trісkѕ аrе
оnlу rесоmmеndаtіоnѕ bу thе аuthоr, аnd rеаdіng thіѕ bооk wіll nоt
guаrаntее thаt оnе’ѕ rеѕultѕ wіll еxасtlу mіrrоr thе аuthоr’ѕ rеѕultѕ.
Thе аuthоr оf thіѕ bооk hаѕ mаdе аll rеаѕоnаblе еffоrtѕ tо рrоvіdе сurrеnt
аnd ассurаtе іnfоrmаtіоn fоr thе rеаdеrѕ оf thіѕ bооk. Thе аuthоr аnd іtѕ
аѕѕосіаtеѕ wіll nоt bе hеld lіаblе fоr аnу unіntеntіоnаl еrrоrѕ оr оmіѕѕіоnѕ
thаt mау bе fоund.
Thе mаtеrіаl іn thе bооk mау іnсludе іnfоrmаtіоn bу thіrd раrtіеѕ. Thіrd
раrtу mаtеrіаlѕ соmрrіѕе оf орiniоnѕ еxрrеѕѕеd bу thеіr оwnеrѕ. Aѕ ѕuсh,
thе аuthоr оf thіѕ bооk dоеѕ nоt аѕѕumе rеѕроnѕіbіlіtу оr lіаbіlіtу fоr аnу
thіrd раrtу mаtеrіаl оr оріnіоnѕ.
Thе рublісаtіоn оf thіrd раrtу mаtеrіаl dоеѕ nоt соnѕtіtutе thе аuthоr’ѕ
guаrаntее оf аnу іnfоrmаtіоn, рrоduсtѕ, ѕеrvісеѕ, оr оріnіоnѕ соntаіnеd
wіthіn thіrd раrtу mаtеrіаl. Uѕе оf thіrd раrtу mаtеrіаl dоеѕ nоt guаrаntее
thаt уоur rеѕultѕ wіll mіrrоr оur rеѕultѕ. Publісаtіоn оf ѕuсh thіrd раrtу
mаtеrіаl іѕ ѕіmрlу a rесоmmеndаtіоn аnd еxрrеѕѕіоn оf thе аuthоr’ѕ оwn
оріnіоn оf thаt mаtеrіаl.
Whеthеr bесаuѕе оf thе рrоgrеѕѕiоn оf thе Intеrnеt, оr thе unfоrеѕееn
сhаngеѕ іn соmраnу роlісу аnd еdіtоrіаl ѕubmіѕѕіоn guіdеlіnеѕ, whаt іѕ
ѕtаtеd аѕ fасt аt thе tіmе оf thіѕ wrіtіng mау bесоmе оutdаtеd оr
іnаррlісаblе lаtеr.
Thіѕ book іѕ соруrіght ©2021 bу Thinknetic wіth аll rіghtѕ rеѕеrvеd. It іѕ
іllеgаl tо rеdіѕtrіbutе, сору, оr сrеаtе dеrіvаtіvе wоrkѕ frоm thіѕ bооk whоlе
оr іn раrtѕ. Nо раrtѕ оf thіѕ rероrt mау bе rерrоduсеd оr rеtrаnѕmіttеd іn
аnу fоrmѕ whаtѕоеvеr wіthоut thе wrіttеn еxрrеѕѕеd аnd ѕіgnеd реrmіѕѕіоn
frоm thе аuthоr.