Chapter 3

Fallacies
I. What Are Fallacies?
Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a
factual nature. If I counted twenty people in the room when there were in fact twenty-
one, then I made a factual mistake. On the other hand, if I believe that there are round
squares I believe something that is contradictory. A belief in “round squares” is a
mistake of reasoning and contains a fallacy because, if my reasoning were good, I
would not believe something that is logically inconsistent with reality.

In some discussions, a fallacy is taken to be an undesirable kind of argument or

inference. In our view, this definition of fallacy is rather narrow, since we might want
to count certain mistakes of reasoning as fallacious even though they are not presented
as arguments. For example, making a contradictory claim seems to be a case of
fallacy, but a single claim is not an argument. Similarly, putting forward a question
with an inappropriate presupposition might also be regarded as a fallacy, but a
question is also not an argument. In both of these situations though, the person is
making a mistake of reasoning since they are doing something that goes against one or
more principles of correct reasoning. This is why we would like to define fallacies
more broadly as violations of the principles of critical thinking, whether or not the
mistakes take the form of an argument.

The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being

familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid them and help explain other people’s
mistakes.
There are different ways of classifying fallacies. Broadly speaking, we might divide
fallacies into four kinds:

___________ : cases where something inconsistent or self-defeating has been

proposed or accepted.

_____________: cases where irrelevant reasons are being invoked or relevant reasons
being ignored.

_____________ cases where the evidence supporting a conclusion is insufficient or

weak.

_____________ cases where we have an assumption or a question presupposing

something that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant conversational context.

II. Fallacies of Inconsistency

Fallacies of inconsistency are cases where something inconsistent, self-contradictory
or self-defeating is presented.

1. ________
Here are some examples:

“One thing that we know for certain is that nothing is ever true or false.” – If there is
something we know for certain, then there is at least one truth that we know. So it
can’t be the case that nothing is true or false.

“Morality is relative and is just a matter of opinion, and so it is always wrong to

impose our opinions on other people.” – But if morality is relative, it is also a relative
matter whether we should impose our opinions on other people. If we should not do
that, there is at least one thing that is objectively wrong.

“All general claims have exceptions.” – This claim itself is a general claim, and so if it
is to be regarded as true we must presuppose that there is an exception to it, which
would imply that there exists at least one general claim that does not have an
exception. So the claim itself is inconsistent.
2.
A self-defeating statement is a statement that, strictly speaking, is not logically
inconsistent but is instead obviously false. Consider these examples:

rVy younge children are fond of saying “I am not here” when they are playing hide-
and-seek. The statement itself is not logically consistent, since it is not logically
possible for the child not to be where she is. What is impossible is to utter the
sentence as a true sentence (unless it is used for example in a telephone recorded
message.)

Someone who says, “I cannot speak any English.”

Here is an actual example: A TV program in Hong Kong was critical of the

Government. When the Hong Kong Chief Executive Mr. Tung was asked about it, he
replied, “I shall not comment on such distasteful programs.” Mr. Tung’s remark was
not logically inconsistent, because what it describes is a possible state of affairs. But it
is nonetheless self-defeating because calling the ropgram “distasteful” is to pass a
comment!

III. Fallacies of Relevance

1. Taking irrelevant considerations into account

This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant reasons, e.g.,
inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc. An example
would be when a student failed a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass
instead, because “his parents will be upset.” Since grades should be given on the basis
of performance, the reason being given is quite irrelevant.

Similarly, suppose someone criticizes the Democratic Party’s call for direct elections
in Hong Kong as follows: “These arguments supporting direct elections have no merit
because they are advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it.” This is
again fallacious because whether the person advancing the argument has something to
gain from direct elections is a completely different issue from whether there ought to
be direct elections.

2Failing to Take Relevant Considerations into Account

For example, it is not unusual for us to ignore or downplay criticisms because we do
not like them, even when those criticisms are justified. Or sometimes we might be
tempted to make a snap decision, believing knee-jerk reactions are the best when, in
fact, we should be investigating the situation more carefully and doing more research.

Of course, if we fail to consider a relevant fact simply because we are ignorant of it,
then this lack of knowledge does not constitute a fallacy.

IV. Fallacies of Insufficiency

Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is provided in support
of a claim. Most common fallacies fall within this category. Here are a few popular
types:

1. Limited Sampling
Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the age of 96. He said he ate
instant noodles every day. So instant noodles cannot be bad for your health.

A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a traffic accident this
afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.

In both cases the observations are relevant to the conclusion, but a lot more data is
needed to support the conclusion, e.g., studies show that many other people who eat
instant noodles live longer, and those who encounter black cats are more likely to
suffer from accidents.

2. Appeal to Ignorance
We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be guilty.

If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence showing that he is

innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to point either way, so a lack of evidence is
not enough to prove guilt.

3. Naturalistic Fallacy
Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not stop them from playing.

Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of insufficiency. Empirical facts by

themselves are not sufficient for normative conclusions, even if they are relevant.

There are many other kinds of fallacy of insufficiency. See if you can identify some of
them.

V. Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption

Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have explicitly or
implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant context.
Some examples include:

Many people like to ask whether human nature is good or evil. This presupposes that
there is such a thing as human nature and that it must be either good or bad. But why
should these assumptions be accepted, and are they the only options available? What
if human nature is neither good nor bad? Or what if good or bad nature applies only to
individual human beings?

Consider the question “Have you stopped being an idiot?” Whether you answer “yes”
or “no,” you admit that you are, or have been, an idiot. Presumably you do not want to
make any such admission. We can point out that this question has a false assumption.

“Same-sex marriage should not be allowed because by definition a marriage should be

between a man and a woman.” This argument assumes that only a heterosexual
conception of marriage is correct. But this begs the question against those who defend
same-sex marriages and is not an appropriate assumption to make when debating this
issue.

VI. List of Common Fallacies

ad hominem

A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it,
but because of the person who argues for it. Example:
A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so that workers are not
exploited.
B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good job.

ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A
simple obvious example of such fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is
no evidence against their existence. At first sight it seems that many theories that we
describe as “scientific” involve such a fallacy. For example, the first law of
thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any negative instance that
would serve as evidence against it. But notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence
for the law, namely positive instances. Notice also that this fallacy does not apply to
situations where there are only two rival claims and one has already been falsified. In
situations such as this, we may justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot
find evidence for or against it.

# In offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people
argue for special treatment on the basis of their need, e.g., a student argues that the
teacher should let them pass the examination because they need it in order to graduate.
Of course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain conditions, as in contexts
involving charity.

# The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its popularity and familiarity.
This is the fallacy committed by many commercials. Surely you have heard of
commercials implying that we should buy a certain product because it has made to the
top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the city’s “favorite.”

# Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q
is true.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that there are
other conditions apart from P that might lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic
jam, a colleague may be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there
being a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be late due to a
faulty alarm clock.

Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most likely condition that
leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to be true without committing a fallacy.
)

# In arguing for a aclaim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise. Example:
“God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is
the word of God.”

# A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer they give to
the question, will inevitably commit themselves to some other claim, which should
not be presupposed in the context in question.

A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people into agreeing to
something they never intended to say. For example, if you are asked, “Are you still as
self-centered as you used to be?”, no matter whether you answer “yes” or ”no,” you
are bound to admit that you were self-centered in the past. Of course, the same
question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question were indeed
accepted in the conversational context, i.e., that the person being asked the question
had been verifiably self-centered in the past.

# The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts. Anne might be
humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person to invite to the party. The same
might be true of Ben, Chris and David, considered individually. But it does not follow
that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they hate each
other and the party will be ruined.

Denying the antecedent

Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false.

This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is
that some alternative explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false,
some other condition might be sufficient to make Q true.

Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not right
to argue in the light of smooth traffic that the colleague will not be late. Again, his
alarm clock may have stopped working.
# The parts of a whole are assumed to have the same properties as the whole. It is
possible that, on a whole, a company is very effective, while some of its departments
are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they all are.

# Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning without having it

pointed out. For example, some philosophers argue that all acts are selfish. Even if
you strive to serve others, you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to
satisfy your desire to serve others. But surely the word “selfish” has different
meanings in the premise and the conclusion – when we say a person is selfish we
usually mean that he does not strive to serve others. To say that a person is selfish
because he is doing something he wants, even when what he wants is to help others, is
to use the term “selfish” with a different meaning.

# Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth
considering in the context. Example: “Every person is either my enemy or my friend.
If they are my enemy, I should hate them. If they’re my friend, I should love them. So
I should either love them or hate them.” Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme
because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.

# Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent. The untrained

mind tends to think that, for example, if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results
are all heads, then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be, however. If
the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely independent of the others. Notice
the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is not known. Had the final result
been known already, the statistics would have been dependent.

# Thinking that because X derives from Y, and because Y has a certain property, that
X must also possess that same property. Example: “His father is a criminal, so he
must also be up to no good.”

# A conclusion is drawn that does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific
fallacy but a very general term for a bad argument. So a lot of the examples above and
below can be said to be non sequitur.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (literally, “after this, therefore because of this”)

Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed by Y.

For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that graveyards are spooky
places that cause illnesses. Of course, this inference is not warranted since this might
just be a coincidence. However, a lot of superstitious beliefs commit this fallacy.

# Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised that diverts attention from the
main subject. The function of the red herring is sometimes to help express a strong,
biased opinion. The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of
the argument in a very misleading manner.

For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone might argue that
believing in God gives peace and meaning to many people’s lives. This would be an
example of a red herring since whether religions can have a positive effect on people
is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The positive psychological effect
of a belief is not a reason for thinking that the belief is true.

# Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C 1, then they have to accept
some other closely related claim C 2, which in turn commits the opponent to a still
further claim C3, eventually leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed
to something absurd or obviously unacceptable.

This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think

if one were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.

An example: “The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government
should also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to
be regulated too. The next thing you know, the government would force us to brush
our teeth and do exercises every day.”

# Attacking an opponent while falsely attributing to them an implausible position that

is easily defeated.

Example: When many people argue for more democracy in Hong Kong, a typical
“straw man” reply is to say that more democracy is not warranted because it is wrong
to believe that democracy is the solution to all of Hong Kong’s problems. But those
who support more democracy in Hong Kong never suggest that democracy can
solve all problems (e.g., pollution), and those who support more democracy in Hong
Kong might even agree that blindly accepting anything is rarely the correct course of
action, whether it is democracy or not. Theses criticisms attack implausible “straw
man” positions and do not address the real arguments for democracy.

Suppressed evidence

Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.

VII. Exercises
Identify any fallacy in each of these passages. If no fallacy is committed, select “no
fallacy involved.”

1. Mr. Lee’s views on Japanese culture are wrong. This is because his parents were
killed by the Japanese army during World War II and that made him anti-Japanese all
his life.

2. Every ingredient of this soup is tasty. So this must be a very tasty soup.

3. Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer.

4. Professor Lewis, the world authority on logic, claims that all wives cook for their
husbands. But the fact is that his own wife does not cook for him. Therefore, his claim
is false.

5. If Catholicism is right, then no women should be allowed to be priests. But

Catholicism is wrong. Therefore, some women should be allowed to be priests.

6. God does not exist because every argument for the existence of God has been
shown to be unsound.

7. The last three times I have had a cold I took large doses of vitamin C. On each
occasion, the cold cleared up within a few days. So vitamin C helped me recover from
colds.
8. The union’s case for more funding for higher education can be ignored because it is
put forward by the very people – university staff – who would benefit from the
increased money.

9. Children become able to solve complex problems and think of physical objects
objectively at the same time that they learn language. Therefore, these abilities are
caused by learning a language.

10. If cheap things are no good then this cheap watch is no good. But this watch is
actually quite good. So some good things are cheap.