2010 1

Fallacy and Truth

Table

ABDULLAH
Muslim Educational Complex Peshawar
4/21/2010
 2

Dedication
This assignment is dedicate
to my parents and cousin
Mr. Farman ullah

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the ALLAH Almighty who gave me courage and willpower to

complete the task I have been given by my teacher Sir Asif Iqbal.

Abdullah Izam
 3

Table of Contents

S.No Subject Page No

1 Fallacy 2

2 Material fallacies 2

3 Verbal fallacies 5

4 Exercise 7 to 25

Abdullah Izam
 4

Fallacy
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in
argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the
listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships
between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured
using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more
difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate
arguments.

Material fallacies
The taxonomy of material fallacies is widely adopted by modern logicians and is based
on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:

 Fallacy of Accident: a generalization that disregards exceptions

o Example

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons

are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited.
Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the
law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule.

o Also called destroying the exception, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum

secundum quid

 Converse Fallacy of Accident: argues from a special case to a general rule

o Example

Argument: Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are
white.
Problem: What one has seen is a subset of the entire set. One cannot have seen all
swans.

o Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum

quid ad dictum simpliciter

 Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than
address it directly.
o Example

Abdullah Izam
 5

Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.

Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)

o Special cases:
 purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
 popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the
majority; appeal to loyalty.),
 fear (argumentum ad baculum),
 conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to
authority)
 to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum
ad misericordiam)
 proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)
o Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

 Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support
that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q
o Example:

Argument: If a person runs barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt.
Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.
Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (i.e. dew).

 Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support
that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q
o Example

Argument: If it is raining out, it must be cloudy. It is not raining out. Therefore, it

is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.

 Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that

assume that conclusion.
o Example

Argument: The Bible says that God exists and the Bible is always right because it
was inspired by God, therefore God exists.
Problem: The premises are circular in nature because each premise is assuming
the other.

o Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle,

assuming the answer. It is worth noting that a circular argument may
actually be both logically and factually correct. Circularity itself has no

Abdullah Izam
 6

bearing on the truth or falseness of the argument at all, the fallacy is to use
a circular argument as a proof of truth.

 Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the
cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
o Example

Argument: Our nation will prevail because God is great.

Problem: There is no necessary cause and effect between God's greatness and a
nation prevailing. Simply because God can be considered great does not mean a
nation will prevail.

o Special cases
 post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession
implies a causal relation.
 Example

Argument: After Billy had his vaccine, he developed autism. Therefore, the
vaccine caused autism.
Problem: The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the
age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.

 cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that happenstance implies

causal relation (aka fallacy of causation versus correlation:
assumes that correlation implies causation).
 Example

Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is
consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the
summer months is killing Indian cows.
Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the
consumption of ice cream.

 Fallacy of Many Questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in
the form of a single question
o Example

Argument: Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?

Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your
wife at some point. (See also Mu.)

o Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms

 Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on

misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
o Example

Abdullah Izam
 7

Person A claims: Sunny days are good.

Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without
rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong.
Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days
are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has
made.

Verbal fallacies
Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous
use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

 Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in
a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in
the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms

Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog;
therefore this fog has a great mass.
Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. In the case of fog, it means that
the fog is dense, not that it has a great mass.

 Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the

speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of
attribution fallacy.

 Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without

stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was
never caught taking money from the cash box" implies that the employee was a
thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement. [1]

 Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure

Example: The position of the adverb "only" in the a sentence starting with "He
only said that" results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the
other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.

 Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of

constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This
can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial
arguments (e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the
garage")

Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled,
therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled.
Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but not in the same styles
of music.

Abdullah Izam
 8

 Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to
each constituent part

Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all
the staff (each part) are 700 years old".
Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 200 years. The
university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the
original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person. See Theseus's Ship
paradox.
Example Argument: "This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the
cereal is nutritious."
Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not
necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.

 Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium

- a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering
an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible,
superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and
check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by
unchallenged.

 Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong
word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good p ianist," according to the emphasis
on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expert
pianist.[citation needed]

 Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a
word or phrase.

Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.

Problem: The expression 'to be at home' does not literally mean that one's
domicile is in that location.

 Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of

metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in
discourse.

Abdullah Izam
 9

1. (A ν B) > (A . B)
AνB
:: A . B
A B A.B AνB P 1(AVB)>(A.B) P 2AνB C*A.B
T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T
T F F T F T F
T F F T F T F
F T F T F T F
F T F T F T F
F F F F T F F
F F F F T F F

Valid R1, R2

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 10

2. (C ν D) > (C . D)
C.D
:: C ν D

C D C.D CνD P 1(CνD)>(C.D) P 2C.D C*CVD

T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T
T F F T F F T
T F F T F F T
F T F T F F T
F T F T F F T
F F F F T F F
F F F F T F F

Valid R1, R2

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 11

3. E>F
F >E
:: E ν F

E F P 1E>F P 2F>E C*EνF

T T T T T
T T T T T
T F F T T
T F F T T
F T T F T
F T T F T
F F T T F
F F T T F

Invalid R7, R8

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

4. (G ν H) > (G . H)
~ (G . H)
:: ~ (G ν H)

Abdullah Izam
 12

G H G.H GνH P 1(G ν H) > (G . H) P 2~ (G . H) C*~ (G v H)

T T T T T F F

T T T T T F F

T F F T F T F

T F F T F T F

F T F T F T F

F T F T F T F

F F F F T T T

F F F F T T T

Valid R7, R8

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 13

5. (IvJ) > (I.J)

~ (IvJ)
:: ~ (I.J)

I J IvJ I.J P 1 (I v J) > (I . J) P 2~ (I v J) C*~ (I . J)

T T T T T F F

T T T T T F F

T F T F F F T

T F T F F F T

F T T F F F T

F T T F F F T

F F F F T T T

F F F F T T T

Valid R1, R2

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 14

6. KvL
K
:: ~ L

K L P 1KvL P2K C*~ L

T T T T F

T T T T F

T F T T T

T F T T T

F T T F F

F T T F F

F F F F T

F F F F T

Invalid R1, R2

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

7. M v (N. ~ N)
M
:: ~ (N . ~N

Abdullah Izam
 15

M N ~N N.~N P 1M v (N.~ N) P2M C*~ (N.~N)

T T F F T T T

T T F F T T T

T F T F T T T

T F T F T T T

F T F F F F T

F T F F F F T

F F T F F F T

F F T F F F T

Valid R1, R2, R3, R4

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 16

8. (O v P) > Q
Q > (O . P)
:: (O v P) > (O . P)

O P Q OvP O.P P 1 (OvP) > Q P 2Q > (O.P) C*(OvP) > (O.P)

T T T T T T T T

T T F T T F T T

T F T T F T F F

T F F T F F T F

F T T T F T F F

F T F T F F T F

F F T F F T F T

F F F F F T T T

Valid R1, R8

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 17

9. (R v S) > T
T > (R . S)
:: (R . S) > (R v s)

R S T RvS R.S P 1(R v S) > T P 2T > (R . S) C*(R . S) > (R v s)

T T T T T T T T

T T F T T F T T

T F T T F T F T

T F F T F F T T

F T T T F T F T

F T F T F F T T

F F T F F T F T

F F F F F T T T

Valid R1, R8
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

10. U > (V v W)
(V . W) > ~ U

Abdullah Izam
 18

:: ~ U

U V W VvW V. W ~U P 1U > (V v W) P 2(V . W) > ~ U C*~ U

T T T T T F T F F

T T F T F F T T F

T F T T F F T T F

T F F F F F F T F

F T T T T T T T T

F T F T F T T T T

F F T T F T T T T

F F F F F T T T T

Invalid R2, R3
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 19

11. (D v C) > B B.G :: D > B

B C D G DvC B.G P 1(DvC) > B P 2B.G C*D>B

T T T T T T T T T

T T T F T F T F T

T T F T T T T T T

T T F F T F T F T

T F T T T T T T T

T F T F T F T F T

T F F T F T T T T

T F F F F F T F T

F T T T T F F F F

F T T F T F F F F

F T F T T F F F T

F T F F T F F F T

F F T T T F F F F

F F T F T F F F F

F F F T F F T F T

F F F F F F T F T

Valid R1, R3, R5, R7

Abdullah Izam
 20

12. (Y v Z) v (Z . Y)
~ (Y > Z)
:: (Y v Z)

Y Z YvZ Z.Y (Y > Z) P 1(Y v Z) v (Z . Y) P 2~ (Y > Z) C*(Y v Z)

T T T T T T F T

T T T T T T F T

T F T F F T T T

T F T F F T T T

F T T F T T F T

F T T F T T F T

F F F F T F F F

F F F F T F F F

Valid R3, R4
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 21

13. (M > N) . (N > P)

MvN
~ (~N . ~p)

M N P ~ ~ MvN M>N N>P (~N.~p) P 1(M>N) . P 2MvN C* ~

N P (N>P) (~N.~p)

T T T F F T T T F T T T

T T F F T T T F F F T T

T F T T F T F T F F T T

T F F T T T F T T F T F

F T T F F T T T F T T T

F T F F T T T F F F T T

F F T T F F T T F T F T

F F F T T F T T T T F F

Valid R1, R5
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

14. (A v B) . (~A v ~B)

~A > ~B

Abdullah Izam
 22

:: ~ B

A B ~A ~B AvB ~A v ~B P 1(AvB) . (~A v ~B) P 2~A > ~B C*~B

T T F F T F F T F

T T F F T F F T F

T F F T T T T T T

T F F T T T T T T

F T T F T T T F F

F T T F T T T F F

F F T T F T F T T

F F T T F T F T T

Valid R3, R4
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 23

15. ~ E > ~F
~F v ~G
:: E v G

E F G ~E ~F ~G P 1 ~E > ~F P 2~F v ~G C*E v G

T T T F F F T F T

T T F F F T T T T

T F T F T F T T T

T F F F T T T T T

F T T T F F F F T

F T F T F T F T F

F F T T T F T T T

F F F T T T T T F

Invalid R8
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

16. (S > T) . (T v S)
S v ~S

Abdullah Izam
 24

:: T

S T ~S S>T TvS P 1(S > T) . (T v S) P 2 Sv ~S C*T

T T F T T T T T

T T F T T T T T

T F F F T F T F

T F F F T F T F

F T T T T T T T

F T T T T T T T

F F T T F F T F

F F T T F F T F

Valid R1, R2, R5, R6

Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

17. (B . C) > (D . E) Bv ~D :: E > C

B C D E ~D B.C D.E P 1 (B.C) > (D.E) P 2Bv ~D C*E > C

T T T T F T T T T T

Abdullah Izam
 25

T T T F F T F F T T

T T F T T T F F T T

T T F F T T F F T T

T F T T F F T T T F

T F T F F F F T T T

T F F T T F F T T F

T F F F T F F T T T

F T T T F F T T F T

F T T F F F F T F T

F T F T T F F T T T

F T F F T F F T T T

F F T T F F T T F F

F F T F F F F T F T

F F F T T F F T T F

F F F F T F F T T T

Invalid R5, R7, R15

18. ~ (H v I) v ~(J . K) (H > J) . I :: ~ K

H I J K HvI J.K ~ ~ H>J P 1 ~ (HvI) v P 2(H>J) . C*~
(HvI) (J.K) ~(J.K) I K

Abdullah Izam
 26

T T T T T T F F T F T F

T T T F T F F T T T T T

T T F T T F F T F T F F

T T F F T F F T F T F T

T F T T T T F F T F F F

T F T F T F F T T T F T

T F F T T F F T F T F F

T F F F T F F T F T F T

F T T T T T F F T F T F

F T T F T F F T T T T T

F T F T T F F T T T T F

F T F F T F F T T T T T

F F T T F T T F T T F F

F F T F F F T T T T F T

F F F T F F T T T T F F

F F F F F F T T T T F T

Invalid R11

Abdullah Izam
 27

19. (V. ~W) > X

W v ~X
~ (V . W)

V W X ~W ~X V. ~W V.W P 1(V. ~W) > X P 2Wv ~X C*~ (V.W)

T T T F F F T T T F

T T F F T F T T T F

T F T T F T F T F T

T F F T T T F F T T

F T T F F F F T T T

F T F F T F F T T T

F F T T F F F T F T

F F F T T F F T T T

Invalid R1, R2
Key:
P1 P2 C*
1st Premise 2nd premise Conclusion

Abdullah Izam
 28

20. (K > L) . (K . L)
~ (K v L)
:: L

K L K>L K.L KvL P 1 (K > L) . (K . L) P 2~ (K v L) C*L

T T T T T T F T

T T T T T T F T

T F F F T F F F

T F F F T F F F

F T T F T F F T

F T T F T F F T

F F T F F F T F

F F T F F F T F

Valid

Abdullah Izam