Presentation

On

Common Fallacies
 Common Fallacies
 A Fallacy is very generally an error in reasoning . To be more specific a fallacy is a

argument in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree

of support.

Example : “Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good.”

“I saw a magpie and ten minutes later, I crashed my car, therefore, magpies are bad luck.”

•Fallacies are difficult to classify

•There are literally dozens of systems for classifying

•Overlapping
 Common Fallacies
Inductive fallacies
 Wrong use of evidence
 Insufficient sample

Deductive fallacies
 Failure to follow the logic of a
series of statements
 Irrelevant issue
 Neglect to make a clear
connection
 Common Fallacies

• Hasty Generalization

• Faulty Use of Authority

• Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause

• False Analogy

• Ad Hominem
 Hasty generalization
The size of the sample is too small to
support the conclusion.

e.g. Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus,

all Australians are thieves. (Of course, we
shouldn't judge all Australians on the basis of
one example.)

 People often commit Hasty Generalizations

because of bias or prejudice

 Prejudice is literally a judgment made before

the facts are in

 Insufficient evidence

 Superstition are also based in part on HG.

 Faulty use of authority

 The attempt to bolster claims by citing the opinions

of experts without evaluation and comparison of
credentials and claims.

 The basic structure of the argument:

Mr. A believes in X.
Therefore, X is true.
FAULTY USE OF AUTHORITY

CLAIM : This is the best shampoo to buy because Marilyn Monroe has recommended it.
FAULTY USE OF AUTHORITY

CLAIM : George W. Bush knows how to run the country because he is a good
business man, and the only president ever to have earned an MBA.
 Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause
The Post Hoc fallacy is a logical or reasoning
fallacy.

Itderives its name from the Latin phrase "Post

hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

This has been traditionally interpreted as "After

this, therefore because of this.”

AlsoKnown as: False Cause, Questionable Cause,

Doubtful Coincidental Relationships With Causes.
 Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause
Post hoc fallacy is committed when it is concluded
that one event caused another simply because the
proposed cause occurred before the proposed
effect.

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed

as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.

Therefore, A caused B.

 Thoughthere is no sufficient evidence to actually

warrant such a claim.
 Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause

Example:

A person who has his/her computer crash

after he/she installs a new piece of software
would probably suspect that the software
was to blame. If he/she simply concluded
that the software caused the crash because it
was installed before the crash, he/she would
be committing the Post Hoc fallacy.
 Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause
Superstitions:

Superstitionsare not only the result of

Hasty generalization.

Many superstitions are probably based on

Post Hoc reasoning because people are very
willing to find a cause-effect connection
between two events.

Example: A good luck charm. 

 Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause

Way to avoid Post Hoc Fallacy:

Post Hoc fallacies are committed by drawing an

unjustified causal conclusion.

 Such unjustified causal conclusion  tend to land far

from the truth of the matter.

The key to avoid them is careful investigation.

 False Analogy

 A false analogy is where an invalid

conclusion is drawn from a
comparison, apparently between
two similar situations.

 An elaborate comparison of two

things that are too dissimilar.

 Merely descriptive and offer no

proof of the connection between the
two things being compared.
 False Analogy
Examples
 As ‘1’ & ‘2’ both are numbers, 1
will be equal to 2.

 Employees and nails are the same.

As it is necessary to hit nails on
the head in order to make them
work, the same must be done with
employees.
 Ad Hominem
 It is a Latin term meaning “Against the
man”

 Refers to an attack on the person rather

than on the argument or the issue

 If the speaker or author proves to be

unacceptable some way, his or her
statements must also be judged as
unacceptable.

 Example: An overweight patient might

reject the advice on diet by an
overweight physician.