Chapter Five: Informal Fallacies

An argument can be good or bad, depending on the Fallacies are grouped in two: Formal and Informal
relationship between the premises and a conclusion. i.e., based on the kind of defect they contain
If an argument fails to meet all the general criteria set for
Formal Fallacy
a good argument, it becomes bad, and hence, fallacious.
If an argument contains a structural defect that
 A fallacy is a defect in an argument
violates standard form of a good argument
(Mistake frequently in reasoning)
- Structural defects may be identified through mere
i.e., other than merely false premises.
inspection of the form of an argument.
It usually involves
Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments
- Creating illusion to make bad argument appear good.
B/C deductive arguments have identifiable forms
- Problem in reasoning process or form of argument.
For e.g. categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms,
- Defects in content of premises or conclusion.
and hypothetical syllogisms.
Fallacy is defined as a deficiency or logical problem that occurs - A categorical syllogism with the form:
in an argument for reasons, other than merely false premises. All A are B / All C are B. Then All A are C. is invalid
So, commits a formal fallacy.
- A logical defect/fault in structural arrangement or
- Affirming the consequent is a type of formal fallacy
reasoning process, or in content of premises or
committed in hypothetical syllogism.
conclusion.
(If a then b + b / therefore a)
i.e., Violation of standard argumentative rules/criteria.
For e.g. “If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
There are four general criteria of a good argument.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.” is invalid.
They specifically evaluate the premises’
 relevance If a deductive argument is invalid b/c of improper
 acceptability arrangement of statements, it commits a formal fallacy.
 sufficiency An inductive argument cannot commit a formal fallacy.
 rebuttable-ity
A good argument must have premises that: Informal Fallacy
- are relevant to the truth of the conclusion - If the defect goes far beyond a structural problem
- are acceptable to a logical person and attacks the very content of the argument.
Cannot be identified through mere inspection
- constitute sufficient grounds for the truth
B/C of ability to hide their true argumentative forms
of the conclusion
Needs detailed analysis on the content of the argument
- anticipate/provide effective rebuttal to
 meaning of the words,
reasonable challenges to the argument
 how statements are constructed
A relevant premise provides reason to believe, or
 how inferences are made
makes d/c to the truth or falsity of the conclusion
To reveal faulty reasoning
An acceptable premise is the reason that makes the
skeptic or rational person accept, or agree.
Aristotle identified thirteen informal fallacies and
A sufficient number, kind and weight of relevant and
separated them into two groups. Subsequent logicians
acceptable premises make a good argument.
produced dozens more, making classification difficult.
Finally for the making of a good argument
An effective rebuttal (refutation, or disproof) to Now, Twenty-two informal fallacies into five groups:
the strongest arguments against its conclusion ¤ Fallacies Of Relevance
or to the strongest arguments in support of ¤ Fallacies Of Weak Induction
alternative position is needed. ¤ Fallacies Of Presumption
Fallacy is violation of one or more of these criteria. ¤ Fallacies Of Ambiguity
¤ Fallacies Of Grammatical Analogy
Both deductive/inductive arguments can have fallacies.
Fallacy makes arguments bad, unsound or uncongent.
 1. Fallacies of Relevance - The objective is to arouse a kind of mob
Common ctxs is irrelevant premises to the conclusion. mentality.
- Premises only relevant Psychologically not Logically - This is the strategy used by nearly every
The connection b/n premises & conclusion isn’t genuine propagandist and demagogue.
It’s emotional Because the individuals in the audience want to share in
AKA Non sequiturs: means conclusion does not seem to the camaraderie, the euphoria, and the excitement,
follow from the premises. they find themselves accepting any number of
AKA Argumentative leaps: means no connection b/n conclusions with ever-increasing fervor.
premises & conclusion, so huge leap (jump) would be Each person feels united with the crowd, which evokes
required to move from premises to conclusion. a sense of strength and security.

To identify a fallacy of relevance, one must be The indirect approach - the arguer aims his or her
able to distinguish genuine evidence from appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more
various forms of emotional appeal. individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of their
relationship to the crowd.
1.1. Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the ‘Stick’) - The indirect approach is very common in
- When Conclusion is defended by a threat to the most advertising industries.
well-being of those who do not accept it. - There are three recognizable forms in
Threat by arguer to physical/psychological well-being of listener indirect approach:
But threat is logically irrelevant to subject matter of conclusion Bandwagon, Vanity, and Snobbery.
even though it seems psychologically relevant.
- Bandwagon fallacy - appeals to the desire of
Note that: The fact that an argument mentions a threat
individuals to be considered as part of group or
does not necessarily make it a fallacy.
community they are living in.
1.2. Appeal to Pity Community or group shares values and norms.
(Argumentum ad Misericordiam) Every individual should manifest conformity.
- attempt to support a conclusion merely by evoking Bandwagon fallacy just uses these emotions and
pity in one‘s audience feelings to get acceptance for a certain conclusion.
If arguer evokes feelings of pity, may distract audience from the - The appeal to vanity often associates the product
logic of the situation & create desire to accept conclusion. with someone who is admired, pursued, or
imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be
Note that: There are arguments from pity, which are
admired and pursued if you use it.
reasonable and plausible.
- Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on the desire to
There are situations where compassion or sympathy
be regarded as superior to others, i.e., to individuals
could be a legitimate response for some situations.
with desires to be regarded as different and better.
1.3. Appeal to the People
Not all appeal to people arguments are inherently
(Argumentum ad Populum)
fallacious. There are arguments from people, which are
Attempt to persuade a person by appealing to
plausible, and it is reasonable and safe to accept the
desires/needs of acceptance/belongingness or approval
conclusion as good.
from others
Feeling of being part of community and belongingness are some 1.4. Argument against the person
of the most important human needs. (Argumentum ad Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers.
Two approaches are involved in appeal to people One advances (either directly or implicitly) certain argument and
fallacy: the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to
Direct and Indirect the first person‘s argument but to the first person himself.
The direct approach - when an arguer excites emotions
and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for
his/her conclusion.
 The argument against the person occurs in three forms: 1.7. Missing the Point
- the ad hominem abusive (Ignoratio Elenchi) = ignorance of the proof
the second person responds to the first person‘s Missing the point is exception to the case where
argument by verbally abusing the first person. premises of argument are irrelevant to the conclusion.
- the ad hominem circumstantial A special form of irrelevance when premises of argument
the respondent attempts to discredit the support one particular conclusion, but then a d/t conclusion,
opponent‘s argument by alluding to certain often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.
circumstances that affect the opponent. - Listener should be able to identify the correct
By doing so the respondent hopes to show that conclusion that the premises logically imply.
the opponent is predisposed to argue the way - The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of
he or she does and should therefore not be his/her own premises and, as a result, draws a
taken seriously. conclusion that misses the point entirely.
- the tu quoque (you too) fallacy
The second arguer attempts to make the first 1.8. Red Herring
appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith, - Closely associated with missing the point.
by citing features in the life/behavior of the first When arguer diverts attention of the listener by changing the
arguer that conflict with the latter‘s conclusion. subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one.
All arguments against the person are not fallacious.
Arguer then finishes by either drawing a conclusion
There are reasonable arguments against the person. about this d/t issue or by merely presuming that some
conclusion has been established.
1.5. Accident
- The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used
The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule
to train hunting dogs to follow a scent.
is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
A red herring (smoked and dried fish species) is dragged
A general rule is cited (directly or implicitly) in the premises &
across the trail with the aim of leading the dogs astray.
then wrongly applied to a specific case mentioned in conclusion. To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer
- The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact must change the original subject of the argument
that one or more accidental features of the specific without the reader or listener noticing it.
case make it an exception to the rule. - Changing original subject to a subtly related one
- Changing subject to some flashy, eye-catching
1.6. Strawman topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract the
When a critic does not rationally criticize the main or listener‘s attention, involving sex, crime,
substantive argument of the opponent; rather criticizes scandal, immorality, death, and any gossip
ideas w/c are misrepresentation of the main content,
Arguer is said to have set-up a straw man & Red herring fallacy Vs Straw man fallacy
knocked it down, to conclude that real man Both have effect of drawing reader/listener off track.
(opposing argument) has been knocked down. But in their own unique ways

When arguer distorts an opponent‘s argument for the purpose In straw man, In the red herring,
of more attacking it easily. arguer begins by distorting arguer ignores opponent‘s
an opponent‘s argument argument (if there is one) and
The arguer demolishes the distorted argument, and
and concludes by knocking subtly changes the subject.
then concludes that the opponent‘s real argument has
down the distorted
been demolished.
argument.
Keep in mind two things when straw man fallacy occurs
- First, try to identify the original argument, which is Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies, attempt to
misrepresented by the critic. determine whether the arguer has knocked down a
- Second, look for what went wrong in the distorted argument or simply changed the subject.
misrepresentation of the argument, i.e., - Straw man always involves two arguers, at least
exaggerating the original argument, adding new implicitly, whereas a red herring often does not.
assumptions e.t.c.
 - Both the red herring and straw man fallacies are However, the cited authority or witness could
confused with missing the point, because all lacks credibility for different reasons.
three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. ¤ might lack the requisite expertise,
¤ might be biased or prejudiced,
Red Herring, Straw man Vs Missing the point
¤ might have a motive to lie or
Straw man draws Red herring draws Missing the point disseminate misinformation,
a conclusion from conclusion from draws conclusion ¤ might lack the requisite ability to
new premises new premises from the original
perceive or recall
that are obtained obtained by premises
by distorting an changing the A more subtle appeal to unreliable authority occurs
earlier argument subject. when a well-known expert in one field is cited as an
expert in another field.
Conclusion is Conclusion is Conclusion is
relevant to the relevant to the irrelevant to the 2.2. Appeal to Ignorance
premises premises premises (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
Usually involves sth that is incapable of being proved or
Missing the point serves in part as a kind of catchall
something that has not yet been proved.
fallacy, and a fallacious argument should not be
identified as a case of missing the point if one of the When premises state that nothing has been proven one way or
other fallacies clearly fits. the other about something, but then the conclusion makes a
definite assertion about that thing
2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
Two important exceptions to the appeal to ignorance
One rule of good argument is premises to constitute
- If qualified researchers investigate a certain
sufficient grounds for truth of the conclusion. phenomenon within their range of expertise
i.e., they must provide sufficient reasons for a rational and fail to turn up any evidence that the
person to accept the conclusion as true.
phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by
- When premises can’t successfully support
itself constitutes positive evidence about the
conclusion, the resulting argument will be a
question.
fallacy of Weak Induction.
- In a court room where a person is taken
Fallacies of weak induction are: innocent until proven guilty, if the prosecutor in
¤ Appeal to Unqualified Authority a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the
¤ Hasty Generalization defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel
¤ False Cause for the defense may justifiably argue that his or
¤ Weak Analogy her client is not guilty.
¤ Slippery Slope
¤ Appeal to Ignorance 2.3. Hasty Generalization
(Converse Accident)
2.1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
A generalization is an inductive argument that proceeds
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim
Appeal to authority/expert opinion is inductive
about the whole group.
argument in w/c conclusion depends on testimony of
- i.e., All the members of the group have that
expert or knowledgeable people.
same characteristic as members of the sample.
Appeal to unreliable authority (or ad verecundiam fallacy) is an
appeal to an authority when the reliability of the authority may The problem with the use of samples is whether the
be reasonably doubtable. sample is representative of the population.
(1) whether the sample is randomly selected
The arguer assumes, without sufficient warrant, that (2) the size of the sample
the authority in question is reliable. (3) Psychological factors
 A sample is random if and only if every member of the ¤ Oversimplified cause
population has an equal chance of being selected. When a multitude of causes is responsible for a
Given that a sample is randomly selected, the larger the certain effect but the arguer selects just one and
sample, the more closely it replicates the population. represents it as if it were the sole cause.
In statistics, degree of closeness is expressed in terms of Usually motivated by self-serving interests
sampling error.
The sampling error is the difference between 2.5. Slippery Slope Fallacy
the relative frequency with which some Slippery slope argument is a very common form of
characteristic occurs in the sample and the argumentation in w/c one party in a dialogue says to
relative frequency with which the same the other,
characteristic occurs in the population. ―This action wouldn’t be good, b/c it could’ve bad consequences.
Cites allegedly foreseeable consequences of a proposed
When there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not action as premise, and the conclusion is then inferred
representative of the group. i.e., if the sample is either too small that this course of action is or is not recommended.
or not randomly selected, there is Hasty Generalization.
Conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises - can be used in a positive or negative way
that mention only a few instances. Positive consequences - course of action is supported
by citing positive consequences of carrying it out
2.4. False cause Fallacy Negative consequences- course of action is argued
Argument from causality is a kind of argument which against by citing negative consequences.
argues either from the knowledge of causes to the
A slippery slope argument is a species of negative
knowledge of effects or from the knowledge of the
reasoning from consequences,
effect to the knowledge of causes.
False cause fallacy is defective and flawed form of argument - where two parties are deliberating together and
from causality, when link b/n premises & conclusion is based on one warns the other not to take an action, b/c it
some imagined connection that probably does not exist. is a first step in a sequence of events that will
lead to some horrible outcome.
¤ There is no settled scientific theory of causality
Causal relationship is practical and contextual in nature. What is distinctive about the slippery slope argument is
A correlation is a purely statistical relationship, that it assumes that once sequence starts there is no
determined by counting up numbers where one event stopping it, until (finally) horrible outcome comes.
occurs in a case where another event also occurs. Slippery slope fallacy is when arguer assumes a chain reaction
Problem from correlation to cause is: will occur but there is insufficient evidence that one (or more)
- There may not be a real correlation between events in the chain will cause others;
two events, but people might believe that i.e., there is no actual connection among the chain of events.
relation exists.
Chains of causes are supposedly a steep slope –
- Statistical correlation between two events can
If taken one step on the slope; slide all the way down.
simply be a coincidence.
- whether both things correlated with each other Slippery slope fallacy is a variety of false cause fallacy.
are really caused by some common factor that
is causing both of them Deciding whether a slippery slope fallacy has been
Fallacy of false cause has d/t forms. committed can be difficult when there is uncertainty
whether the alleged chain reaction will or will not occur.
¤ Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means in Latin
But many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional
“after this, therefore because of this.”
conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain
This form of the false cause fallacy occurs whenever an
action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to
arguer illegitimately assumes that b/c event X preceded
trump up support for his or her position by citing all
event Y, then X caused Y.
sorts of dire consequences that will result if the action is
¤ On causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”)
taken.
When cause of sth isn’t really the cause at all
Mistake is not merely temporal succession
 2.6. Weak Analogy This argument is intended to trap the respondent into
Analogy is a kind of case-based reasoning, where one acknowledging something that he/she might otherwise
case is held similar to another in a particular respect. not want to acknowledge.
Two things could be similar to each other in certain
Fallacy of complex question should be distinguished
respects, but dissimilar in other respects.
from another kind known in law as a leading question.
When analogy between things, situations and circumstance is Leading question is one in w/c the answer is in
not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn. some way suggested in the question.
Evaluating this form of argument requires a two-step Leading questions involve no logical fallacies,
procedure: (1) Identify the attributes a, b, c… that i.e., they do not attempt to trick the respondent into
the two (A and B) share in common, admitting sth he/she does not want to admit.
(2) determine how the attribute z, To distinguish the two, it is necessary to know
mentioned in the conclusion, relates to whether prior questions have been asked.
the attributes a, b, c,
3.3. False Dichotomy
If some causal/systematic r/n exists b/n z and a, b, or c,
When a disjunctive (―either . . . or . . .)premise
the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak.
presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the
only ones available, and arguer then eliminates the
3. Fallacies of Presumption undesirable, leaving the desirable one as conclusion.
These fallacies arise because the premises presume
False dichotomy presumes that an ―either . . . or . . . statement
what they purport to prove.
presents jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not
The fallacies of presumption include
- begging the question Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the
- complex question disjunctive premise is false, or at least probably
- false dichotomy false, the argument is typically unsound.
- suppressed evidence If disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive
alternatives, the premise would be true of necessity.
3.1. Begging the Question
(Petitio Principii) False dichotomy AKA false bifurcation
The arguer creates an illusion that inadequate premises AKA the “either-or fallacy”
provide adequate support for the conclusion Arguer expresses only the disjunctive premise and
leaves it to listener to supply the missing statements.
Begging the question presumes that the premises provide
adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not 3.4. Suppressed Evidence
True premises do not ignore important piece of
- By leaving out possibly false/shaky key premise evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
- By restating possibly false premise as conclusion entails a very different conclusion.
- By reasoning in a circle If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such
Latin name “petition principia” = request for the source evidence, then the fallacy is of suppressed evidence.
An argument is said to beg the question when Actual
Suppressed evidence presumes that no important evidence has
source of support for the conclusion is not apparent.
been overlooked by the premises when in fact it has.
After reading or hearing the argument, the observer is
inclined to ask, Most common occurrence of suppressed evidence
―But how do you know X? fallacy is in inferences based on advertisements.
where X is the needed support. Nearly every advertising neglect certain negative
features of the product advertised.
3.2. Complex Question Another way is ignoring important events that have
When two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of occurred with the passage of time that render an
single question & single answer is then given to both. inductive conclusion improbable.
Complex question presumes that a question can be answered by Another form is when arguers quote passages out of
a simple ―yes, ―no, or other brief answer when a more context from sources to support a conclusion that the
sophisticated answer is needed. passage was not intended to support.
 The suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to begging Amphiboly Vs Equivocation- d/t in two important ways
the question in which the arguer leaves a key premise - First, equivocation is ambiguity in the meaning
out of the argument. of a word/phrase, whereas amphiboly involves
The difference is that suppressed evidence leaves a syntactical ambiguity in a statement.
out a premise that requires a different conclusion, - Second, amphiboly involves a mistake by arguer
while that form of begging the question leaves out a in interpreting an ambiguous statement made
premise that is needed to support the stated by someone else, whereas equivocation is
conclusion. typically the arguer‘s own creation.
However, because both fallacies proceed by leaving a Occasionally, the two fallacies occur together
premise out of the argument.
5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity Argument with this fallacy is grammatically analogous
An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to to other argument that is good in every respect.
different interpretations in a given context. i.e. similarity in linguistic structure
- When the conclusion depends on a shift in Fallacies of grammatical analogy are:
meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or on - Composition
the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous - Division
statement, the argument commits a fallacy of
5.1. Composition
ambiguity.
The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of
The fallacies of ambiguity includes
an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an
- Equivocation
attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.
- Amphiboly
i.e., when it is argued that because the parts
4.1. Equivocation have a certain attribute, it follows that the
whole has that attribute too and the situation is
When the conclusion depends on the fact that a word/phrase is such that the attribute in question cannot be
used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses. legitimately transferred from parts to whole.
Such arguments are either invalid or have a false Composition Vs Hasty Generalization
premise, and in either case they are unsound.
Composition proceeds from the members of the class to
To be convincing, an argument must use the the class itself. Hasty generalization, on the other hand,
equivocal word in ways that are subtly related. proceeds from the specific to the general.
Another technique is to spread out the shift in meaning The distinction is on the d/c b/n the collective
over the course of a lengthy argument. and the distributive predication of an attribute.
4.2. Amphiboly To distinguish composition from hasty generalization,
When arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then - Examine the conclusion of the argument.
draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. - If conclusion is a general - If conclusion is a class
statement, i.e., an attribute is statement, i.e., an attribute is
- The original statement is usually asserted by
predicated distributively to predicated collectively to a
someone other than the arguer, and
each/every member of a class- class as a whole-
- The ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in
fallacy is hasty generalization. fallacy is composition.
grammar or punctuation.
Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be
5.2. Division
understood in two clearly distinguishable ways.
The exact reverse of composition.
The arguer typically selects the unintended
As composition goes from parts to whole,
interpretation and proceeds to draw a
division goes from whole to parts.
conclusion based upon it.
Two areas where amphiboly cause serious problems The division fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a
involve contracts and wills.
whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members).
Just as composition can sometimes be confused with
hasty generalization (converse accident), division can
sometimes be confused with accident.

Division proceeds from the class to the members, while

To avoid such a mistake, analyze premises of argument.

If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy