CHAPTER 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Inductive Argument (particular to general)

-

the truth of the premises provides or makes it more or less likely that the conclusion is
true

Deductive Argument (general to particular)

-

the truth of the premises implies that the conclusion must be true, except if the syllogism
does not follow an order or a sequence

FALLACY
-

involves a mistake in reasoning; sometimes called a non-sequitur it does not follow

fallere to deceive; type of argument which may appear to be true but upon
examination, will be proven false

THERFORE, A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF TRUTH.

a. Sophism fallacy committed with the intention to deceive or mislead an opponent

b. Paralogism fallacy employed unknowingly or due to ones ignorance of the rules of
correct reasoning
FORMAL FALLACIES
-

errors are committed due to lack of skills in reasoning & training in the logical process
found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms categorical,
hypothetical & disjunctive syllogisms

INFORMAL FALLACIES
-

I.

errors are committed when either irrelevant psychological factors are allowed to distort
the reasoning process through the use of pity or threat or when one is confused by
linguistic ambiguities in ones premise or conclusion
De Sophistici Elenchi Aristotles treaties that identified thirteen types of fallacies
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
o occur when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion of that
argument
o may appear similar to the fallacy of insufficient evidence but the fallacies of
relevance relies on the premises that are not relevant to conclusion & will not
establish the truth
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Forcce or Threat of Force)
- an illegitimate mode of persuasion wherein the arguer makes use of force,
threats of force or threats
against the persons security
- psychologically impeding the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing
premise that if
acknowledge, would be seen to be false

Example: When a child threatens not to eat his food unless the mother buys him the
toy that he wanted.
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

occurs when pity is evoked in order to support a statement even though it is

irrelevant
- committed when one appeals to compassion or pity in order to win an argument
Example: When a lawyer pleads for the acquittal of his accused client on the ground
that the accused is
the sole breadwinner of his family.

3. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to People or to Popular Sentiment or Emotion)

- also known as Mob Appeal Fallacy, w/c uses emotion-laden terminology to sway
people en masse
- when one attempts to influence the judgment of ones listener or reader
a. Direct Approach occurs when an arguer, who is addressing a large group of
people, excites the
emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win the acceptance for his
conclusion; mob mentality
b. Indirect Approach the arguer claims for her appeal not at the crowd as a whole
but at one or more
individuals separately; includes bandwagon argument,
appeal to vanity & appeal to snobbery
c. Appeal to Vanity associates the product with someone who is admired,
pursued, or imitated
o is also an argumentum ad populum because a person is being made to
believe that he will
also be admired if he will use the product being endorsed by a wellknown individual
Basic Structure: You want to be accepted in the group. Therefore, you should accept the
argument as true.
4. Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument against the Person or Attack against the Man)
- when someone who wishes to oppose a certain view, made an attempt to
discredit the person who
holds the view, instead of assessing the merits of the view itself
a. Abusive also known as appeal to personality or poisoning the well fallacy. This
is done when somebody attacks the character of the person that is likely to
arouse negative feelings.
b. Circumstantial Argument against the Person
whose object is to discredit the source of the belief or statement
c. Tu Quoque Fallacy or You-Too Argument consists in an attempt to defend
oneself against some
accusation by making a countercharfe against ones accuser
5. Genetic Fallacy
- basically similar to argumentum ad hominem in that it attempts to discredit the
statement or belief
by discrediting the source of that belief or argument
- ad hominem attacks the person ; genetic fallacy attacks the source of the
issue
6. Fallacy of Accident
- arises as the result of the careless or deliberately deceptive use of
generalizations
- there is no room for exception
example: Jogging is good for the health. (general rule)

Therefore, a person with heart disease (exceptional case) could also improve his
health by jogging.
7. Straw-Man Fallacy
- committed when a person distorts an opponents argument for the purpose of
more easily attacking it; this fallacy consists a misrepresentation of the position
that one wishes to oppose in such a way that he would appear first to be
agreeing on the issue, yet, the truth is he was really opposing.
8. Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point Fallacy)
- or Ignorance of the Proof Fallacy, committed when the premises of an argument
support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely
related to the correct conclusion
- this fallacy is called ignoratio elenchi because the arguer is ignorant of the
logical implications of his own premises. It results the arguer to draw a
conclusion that misses the point of the issue.
9. Red Herring Fallacy (Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion)
- closely associated with ignoratio elenchi, committed when an arguer diverts the
attention of the listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes
related one.
- the fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a
scent
10.Arithmetical Fallacy
- consists in applying the rules of arithmetic to practical situations without
qualifications
- After analysis, one will find out that the given argument is actually false because
it is not applicable to real life situations.
II.

1.

2.

3.

4.

FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION

- occur because the premises do not sufficiently support the conclusion
- the premises provide at least a shred of evidence in support of the conclusion
- often involve emotional ground for believing the conclusion
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)
- committed when the appeal is made to parties who do not have the proper
authority
- lays claim on the fact that expertise is field specific
- can also be called appeal to general eminence or appeal to a famous person
Argumentum ad Ignorantian (Appeal to Ignorance)
- occurs when it is asserted that a given statement is accepted as true simply
because it cannot be proven to be false or false simply on the basis that it
cannot be proven true
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
- committed when one argues that what is true of a few members of a class must
also be true of all the members of that class
- opposite of the fallacy of accident, because this fallacy consists in applying a
specific rule, which is only applicable to some cases within a class
False Cause Fallacy
- occurs when an event A is identified as the cause of another event B
a. Post Hoc Fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc after this, therefore before
this ; consists in arguing

that A is the cause of B solely because A occurred before

B
b. Non Causa Pro Causa not the cause for the cause ; committed when what is
taken to be the cause
of something is not really the cause at all
c. Oversimplified Cause committed when a multitude of causes is responsible for
a certain effect but
the arguer selects just one of these causes
5. Slippery Slope Fallacy
- variety of the false cause fallacy ; committed when the conclusion of an
argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction & theres no sufficient reason that
the chain should occur
- persuade the listener that the welfare of society rests on a slippery slope
6. Fallacy of Weak Analogy
- the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy or similarity between two
things or situations
- committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that
is drawn
III.

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
- arise because the premise presumes a conclusion that they wanted to presume
- occurs when the premises presume a conclusion that the speaker wanted to
assert
1. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question Fallacy)
- petition principii request for the source
- committed when the arguer requests an opponent to grant what the opponent
seeks a proof of
First Form: When leaving a possibly false key premise out of the argument while
creating the illusion that
nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion.
Example: You have to study your lesson because you have to study your
lessons.
Second Form: When the conclusion of an argument merely restates a possibly false
premise in slightly
different language.
Example: Cheating isa grave sin. Therefore, cheating is a mortal sin.
Third Form: involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first
premise that is possibly false.
2. Fallacy of Complex Question
- committed when two or more questions are asked in the guise of a single
question and a single answer is then given to both of the questions
- basically a trick in order to induce someone to assent to apart from the trick
3. Black or White Fallacy
- committed when one assumes that there are only contrary alternatives
available, ignoring the possibility of other alternatives bet. the contraries
- when terms are taken as contraries instead as contradictories
4. Fallacy of Suprressed Evidence
- if the premises ignore the evidence and end up with a very different conclusion

ignoring important events that have occurred with the passage of time
committed when the arguer quotes passages out of context from sources
similar to begging the question fallacy because the arguer leaves a key premise
out of the argument

IV.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
- arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or
the conclusion
- when the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning of an
ambiguous word or phrase
or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement
1. Fallacy of 4, 5, 6 or Fallacy of Equivocation
- occurs because of the fact that a given word or phrase may have more than one
meaning so it produces a different conclusion than what is really intended
2. Fallacy of Accent
- occurs when a false conclusion is drawn from premises at least one of w/c has
been rendered misleading or false by a misplaced accent
- if the arguer gives an argument that may produce a different conclusion due to
the manner of saying the argument
3. Fallacy of Amphiboly (Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiquity)
- when the meaning of the argument is indeterminate because of the loose or
awkward way by which
its words are combined
- the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement then draws a conclusion on a
faulty interpretation

V.

FALLACIES OF GRAMMATICAL ANALOGY

- occur when the fallacious arguments are grammatically analogous to other
arguments that are good
in every respect
1. Fallacy of Composition
- consists in treating a distributed characteristic as if it were collective ; taking
jointly what should be
taken separately
- when one makes a mistake of attributing to a group
2. Fallacy of Division
- opposite of the fallacy of composition
- consists in treating a collective attribute distributively & then drawing inferences
from the statement thus obtained ; taking separately what should be taken
together

William Halverson presented the informal rules for detecting fallacies

He claimed that these rules do not actually guarantee that we will not be misled by fallacious
arguments, he still believed that these will greatly reduce the likelihood of being misled.