CHAPTER - 5

LOGICAL REASONING
AND
FALLACIES
“It is wrong always, everywhere & for anyone,
to believe anything upon insufficient & illogical evidence.”
W. K. Clifford

Prepared by:- Nebiyu A.

(Dilla University)
 Introduction
 FALLACY means a logical defect/mistake in argument
 Any fallacious argument is a bad argument.
 Equally, any bad argument is bad because:-
 It contains a fallacy or/and
 It has false premise/s.
 Etymologically:-fallacy  fallacia  means
 deception, trick or cheating.
 Fallacious arguments deceive/trick the R/L, since
 it makes the argument appear good, correct or logical,
 trick audiences into thinking that the arguments forwarded
are logically correct & good
 but, in fact they are not (they are bad, incorrect or illogical).
 can not easily be identified/notified Nebiyu A.
 Cont,….
 Fallacies can be committed by:-
 Speakers or writers
 Unintentionally or intentionally
 Why people commit fallacies…??? b/z to fulfilling their motives
 by diverting or controlling the R/Ls‟ attention or position
with no or insufficient reason.
 Often emotive terminologies used in concealing the logical
mistakes
 Both deductive & inductive arguments may contain fallacies;
 If they do, they are either Unsound or Uncogent
 TWO types of fallacies:
1. Formal Fallacies
2. Informal Fallacies Nebiyu A.
 Cont,….
 Formal Fallacies:- committed when the form or
logical structure of arguments are violated. And
 identified by examining the form of the argument
 occur only in deductive arguments
 involve invalid deductive argument forms.
 A deductive argument can be invalid & fallacious
when:
 the Ps fail to sufficiently/strictly support the C; or/&
 it consists of a false P or/& C.
Nebiyu A.
 Cont,….
 Formal fallacies-- TWO types:

1. Fallacies of Syllogistic argument: are fallacies such as;

 fallacies of categorical syllogism,
 fallacies of disjunctive syllogism
 fallacies of hypothetical syllogism
2. Fallacies of Propositional argument: are fallacies of ;
 illicit conversion, √ illicit sub-alteration
 illicit contraposition, √ existential fallacy.
 illicit contrary, Nebiyu A.
 Cont,….
 Informal Fallacies:- occurs when the content of an
argument is problematic. And
 identified by examining the content of the arguments.

 must know the fact about the issues raised in an argument

 occur in both deductive & inductive arguments

Examples(of Informal & Formal fallacies):-

1. All cats
are mammals. All animals are mammals. Thus, all cats are
animals.
2. All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Thus, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
3. After taking one look at my ring, my student said it is a real gold. Hence,
I can conclude that the ring is indeed a real gold. Nebiyu A.
 Informal Fallacies

 22 informal fallacies, under FIVE groups:-

1. Fallacies of Relevance ==== 8
2. >> Weak Induction = 6
3. >> Presumption === 4
4. >> Ambiguity===== 2
5. >> Grammatical Analogy  2

Nebiyu A.
 3.1 Fallacies of Relevance
 There are Eight fallacies under fallacy of relevance:
1. Appeal to Force/Stick fallacy
2. Appeal to Pity Direct Form
3. Appeal to the People Appeal to Bandwagon
Indirect Appeal to Vanity
Abusive A. to Snobbery

4. Argument Against the Person Circumstantial

You too (Tu Quoque)
5. Accident
6. Straw Man
7. Missing the point
8. Red Herring Nebiyu A.
 Cont,….
 8 of them commonly share THREE basic features:-
1.The Ps are logically irrelevant to the C.
2. The Ps may be psychologically relevant to the C.

 as they seem to correct, good or logical.

3. There is only emotional connection b/n the Ps & the C (but

no logical connection).

 To identify whether these fallacies occur, one needs to distinguish:

 genuine & logical evidence from various forms of emotional

appeal
Nebiyu A.
 1. Appeal to Force /Stick
 It is committed when an arguer threats/pressures a R/L to
accept its conclusion (instead of providing logical premises). OR
 [when an arguer tries to be accepted its conclusion by posing a threat on a R/L]

 Instead of providing logical Ps, an arguer poses threats on a R/L

 Logical evidences are replaced by threats:

 either Physical threat or
 Psychological threat, or
 both forms of threats

 This is achieved by indicating that some danger will happen on the

audiences who do not accept the claim or position.
 I.e., the emotional appeal (which poses the threat on the R/L) replaces
logical evidences or justifications.
 Cont,….
Examples
1- Child to its Playmates:
Arsenal is the best football club in the world, if you don’t accept this, I am
going to call my brother & he will throw you out!
2- A teacher to his student:
I deserve to get in a relationship with you. If you don’t’ accept my request, you
will be in trouble (I am going to give you “F” grade).

Nebiyu A.
 2. Appeal to Pity
when an arguer tries to pose/support its conclusion by
 committed

appealing/evoking pity from the R/L so as to get mercy,

sympathy or any kinds of excuse. OR

 the emotional appeal which raises the pity of the R/L

replaces logical evidences/justifications.

 But, subjective feelings [of pity] about a person are not relevant to
claims that something is objectively true of that person.
Example: A Student to her Instructor;
I am suffering from heart disease. Besides, both my father &
mother died when I was 5 years old. I have no sister or
brother. I am an orphan, & have lost my only uncle a week
ago in accident. Above all, I must get “C” grade to survive in
the university.Teacher, therefore, it would be fair to improve
my grade from “D” to “C”.
Nebiyu A.
 3. Appeal to the People
 Everyone desires/wants to be accepted, loved & respected
 How can we secure such desires…??
1. Either by appealing to emotion or
2. by forwarding rational & logical justifications.
 AP fallacy is committed when an arguer appeals to
emotion so as to get acceptance from others. OR
 when the emotional appeal which raises the mob
mentalities (emotions) of the crowds/public replace the
rational & logical evidences.
 Propagandists/public figures often employ it when they
deliver their speech to the crowds/public Nebiyu A.
 Cont,…
 Public figures often forward premises with contents of emotive &

expressive languages, in order to raise the Mob mentality of the

crowds & make the crowds to accept their side or conclusion.

 to motivate/raise the enthusiasm, excitement, &/or anger of the

crowds

Nebiyu A.
 Cont,…
 Appeal to People fallacy has TWO forms/approaches:-
A. Direct Form/Approach
B. Indirect Form/Approach

NOTE: Both the direct & indirect approaches have the same
basic structure:
You want to be accepted/included in the group, loved, or admired....Therefore, you
should accept XYZ as true.
A. Direct form:- occurs when an arguer addresses its appeal at the
crowd as a whole & motivates the emotions & enthusiasm of the
public to win acceptance for a conclusion.
 Arguer arouses mob mentality.
 Often used by Politicians, military leaders & other public figures.
Examples: A Political leader who opposes federalism would propagate as….
 Cont,…
B. Indirect form:- occurs when the arguer urges the R/L to
do/accept something, simply b/cz:
 everyone else is doing or accepting it or
 admired people are using it.
The arguer directs its appeal to individuals separately, focusing on some
aspect of their relationship to the crowd, but not to the crowd as a whole directly.

 an illogical attempt to exploit the emotion of the people for some

private motives.
 in advertising industry (commercial advertisements).
NOTE- Reaching a certain conclusion based on the premises
of advertisement is fallacious
Nebiyu A.
 Cont,d…
 Advertisements usually attempts to attract customer‟s emotional
approval by informing that the products are „comfortable‟, „best
selling‟; „delicate‟,… etc. These emotively charged terminologies
make the customers not to raise questions about the durability,
quality, expiring date, etc…

 The THREE forms of Indirect approach;

A. Appeal to Bandwagon,
B. Appeal to Vanity
C. Appeal to Snobbery.

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

A. Appeal to Bandwagon:
Occurs when the arguer plays on the R/L's need to feel part of a group.
OR
It emphasizes that the majority’s choice is the correct one & so urges
the R/L to accept/join them. OR
 It appeals to the desire of individuals to be considered as part of the
group or community.
 Occurs if some argue as you will be left behind (left out) of the
group/majority if you do not use the product.
Eg: Of course, you have to dress Skinny trouser. Everyone who is cool
have got a Skinny trouser.
Eg: You have got to see Serawit Fikre’s latest film immediately. It is
breaking the country’s film records in terms of audiences, and
everyone is talking about it. Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…
B. Appeal to Vanity:
Occurs when an arguer plays on the R/L‟s vanity. OR
 Often associates the product with someone who is admired, &
informs that you, too, will be admired if you use it.

Example: The ads show a celebrity & handsome man using Gillet
shaver, and speaks: ….. The Few, the Proud, ……...
The message is that if you use Gillet shaver, then you, too, will be admired and became celebrity, just like
the handsome man.
2. Mother to child:
You want to grow up & be just like Haile G/Selassie, don't you? Then eat your bread & drink
your milk.
Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

C. Appeal to Snobbery:
 Occurs when the arguer plays on the R/L's need to feel superior. OR
 an arguer promotes the position that “if you qualify as one of a member of the
selected few (or want to be a member of the selected few), you should use this product”
i.e.
This fallacy is based on a desire to be regarded as superior to others.
 This fallacy appeal individuals & their desires to be regarded as different & better.

 Products are usually associated with persons with high social positions (Business man, Kings, & queens…)

Eg: Lifan 520-car is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of the select few, this
distinguished car may be seen & driven at Lifan Motor Cars, Ltd. (By
appointment only, please.)
2: Fiendship café is the best café in AA. That is why distinguished persons like
Teddy Afro are always there on weekends. Come & enjoy your weekends at
Friendship café!!
Nebiyu A.
 Cont,d…
NOTE :-
 In any case, both direct & indirect forms have the same basic
structure;- i.e
“if you want to be accepted, loved, admired…, you should
accept XYZ as true.”

 The ideal of the fallacy can be stated as: B/z of the majority
accepted it (or b/z admired peoples are using it), you
should also accept it or you should also use it.

Nebiyu A.
 4. Argument against the Person
 Commit when one arguer tries to rejects other’s argument
by attacking the arguer’s personal characteristics
(instead of attacking the argument).
 always involves two arguers.
 Arguer’s personal characteristics have nothing to do with
whether a P supports its C in the argument.

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

 This fallacy can be committed in THREE ways:

A. Fallacy of Abusive
B. Fallacy of Circumstantial
C. Fallacy of You too ( Tu Quoque).
Nebiyu A.
 A. Abusive
 committed when the 2nd arguer attacks the first arguer by
verbally abusing the arguer.
 The 2nd arguer concludes that the first person’s argument is as
bad as he/she alleged to be.

“You are bad. So your argument is bad.”

 But, arguer’s personal characteristics have nothing to do with
whether a P supports its C.

Example:
Ato Gebeyhu has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody
should listen to his argument. He is a Slob who cheats on his wife, & beats his
wife.
Nebiyu A.
 B. Circumstantial
 Occurs when the 2nd arguer attacks the first arguer by noting
certain circumstances that predisposed/inclined him/her to
argue in this way.
 When someone argues that his opponents’ argument is false since
their circumstances make it impossible to tell the truth.
 The attacking is directed on the circumstance the arguer belongs
(but not directed on the person).

“You are affected by circumstances, so your argument is no good”

 But, an arguer’s personal attitudes or disposition to
certain circumstances has nothing to do with whether a P
supports its C.
Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…
Example:
1: Ato Mohammed has just argued that we replace the public school
system with private education. But, he argues that way since he
has no kids, & does not want to pay any more taxes for public
education.
2: Taye has argued that the tax system is unfair since government
employees pay all the taxes & the business persons pay almost
nothing. But, of course he argues that way, he is just a
government employee.

Nebiyu A.
 C. You too (Tu quoque).
 committed when the 2nd arguer attacks the first arguer by
noting that the arguer is hypocrite, (its action is contrary with its words)
 It is committed when we argue that the arguer‟s claim is false
since its argument is contrary with what he has said or done
before.
“You are a hypocrite, so your argument is no good”
 But, whether a P supports a C has nothing to do with whether
the arguer is a hypocrite.

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…
Examples
1 : Ato Gemechu has just given us reason why we should place more
emphasis on family values. But he has no business talking. Just a week ago
he got divorce.
2 : Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy is no good.
You told me yourself that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid.

Nebiyu A.
 5. Accident
 It is committed when an arguer wrongly applies (or
misapplies) a general rule, principle or truth to specific
case that the rule was not intended to cover.
 Typically, the general rule is cited in the Ps & then wrongly
applied to the specific case mentioned in the C.
Examples
1: Children should obey their parents.Therefore, little
Abush should follow his fathers orders to drop out of
school & get a job.

2: Freedom of assembly is a constitutionally guaranteed

right. Hence,Tesfaye & his friends have a right to
organize a party in the university’s classroom.
Nebiyu A.
 6. Straw Man
 Occurs when an arguer distorts another person’s argument for
the purpose of easily attacking/defeating it (to reject it).
 Committed when someone distorts (& substitutes the
original version of) his/her opponent’s argument, & then
attacks the distorted argument.
 Usual Strategy:- make the other person’s argument look more
extreme than it really is.
Example: Dr. Kebede has just argued
against affirmative action for women. It
seems what he is saying is that women
should stay out of the work place
altogether. Just keep them pregnant. That
is what he wants. I think we are all smart
enough to reject his argument. Nebiyu A.
 7. Missing the Point
 It is committed when the Ps of an argument clearly imply
one C, but the arguer draws a different C which is not
implied by the Ps. OR
 committed when an arguer draws a C other than the one the P logically implies

 In other words, when someone draws a C, which completely misses the point.
(i.e, the argument has a problem of the logical implication of the P.)

 Unlike to the other fallacies, this fallacy illustrates a special form of irrelevance, whenever
it is being committed, one has to identify the correct C that the Ps logically imply.
Ex. 1: Kebed argues that his Logic class is hard.Thus, he
concludes that he should ignore Logic class & settle for
a “D” grade.
(The logical conclusion is: he should continue studying hard &…..)
Ex. 2: Crimes of theft & robbery have been increasing at
an alarming rate.The conclusion is obvious:We must
 8. Red Herring (Off the Track)
 It is committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the R/L by
changing the original subject to some d/ft issue without the R/L
notifying it (& then a C will be drawn based on the changed subject.).
 It is an attempt to divert the attention of audiences to a different issue
(but sometimes cleverly to related issue).
 The fallacy is sometimes called “Off the track” fallacy B/z; an arguer who
commits this fallacy ignores the topic under discussion & shifts the attention
of his audiences to another issue.
 But, the mere fact that an arguer succeeds in diverting the attention of the
audience does not justify any C.
 It is usual Strategy
 Cont’d…
Example:
Ato Shiferaw (who is a senior official in water resource management) has argued that CleanWater Act should
never be weakened. But the point is that water is one of the most common
substances on earth. Over 2/3 of our planet’s surface is covered with water, &
massive amounts of frozen water cover both poles. If the ice caps were ever to
melt, ocean levels would rise several feet. Obviously the official has been
misinformed.

Environmentalists are continually harping (talking persistently) about the dangers of

Nuclear Power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes
from. Every year hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of
these accidents are caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would
just exercise greater caution. Nebiyu A.
 SUMMERY on Fallacies of Relevance
1. Appeal to force: Arguer threatens R/L, so as to get acceptance from others.
2. Appeal to pity: Arguer evokes/elicits pity from R/L to get acceptance from others.
3. Appeal to the people: arguer appeals to emotion so as to get acceptance from others.
 Direct: Arguer arouses mob mentality.
 Indirect: Arguer appeals to R/L's desire for security, love, respect,…etc.
* Bandwagon * Vanity & * Snobbery
4. Argument against the person: arguer tries to reject other’s argument by attacking certain
personal characteristics of that arguer
 Abusive: Arguer verbally abuses other arguer.
 Circumstantial: Arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to argue this way.
 You too (Tu Quoque): Arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite.
5. Accident: General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
6. Straw man: Arguer distorts other's argument, & then attacks the distorted argument.
7. Missing the point: Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by premises.
8. Red herring: Arguer leads R/L off track, & then draws a conclusion on the new issue.
 Fallacies of Weak Induction
 F. of Weak Induction: occur when the Ps provide a bit of support for the C,
but not enough/sufficient to believe the C. (not because the Ps are logically
irrelevant to the C, as is the case with the previous 8 fallacies of relevance)
 Each of the 6 fallacies of FWI commonly share THREE basic features:-
1. The Ps provide a share of evidence to support the C, but the evidences
are not good enough to cause a reasonable person to accept the C.
2.The connection b/n Ps & C is not strong enough
3. Involve emotional appeal.
9. Appeal to unqualified Authority: Arguer cites untrustworthy authority/person.
10. Appeal to Ignorance: Ps report that nothing is known or proved, & then a
certain C is drawn.
11. Hasty Generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.
12. False Cause: Conclusion depends on non-existent or minor causal connection.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc; two things are causal connected b/c one happen after the other
Non causa pro causa:- picking the wrong thing/cause as a cause
Oversimplified cause selecting one out of the several causes & treating it as if it is the only cause
13. Slippery Slope: Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
14. Weak Analogy: Conclusion depends on defective (not strong) analogy.
 9. Appeal to unqualified Authority
 Committed when an arguer cites untrustworthy authority/person. OR
 when the cited authority/witness/person lacks credibility
 There are some cases where individuals might lack credibility. If the person might
1. lack the expertise/professionalism
2. be biased or prejudiced,
3. have a motive to lie or disseminate "misinformation“, or
4. lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.
 A-UA: occurs when an arguer cites a statement made by other person as evidence for a C, that
person is not qualified to make such a statement.

Examples:

1: After taking one look at my ring, my student said it is a real gold.Thus, we can conclude that the ring is indeed a
real gold..
2: Omer, who is a famous astronomer, says that AIDS epidemic is caused by a perverse alignment of the planets, & that
there is nothing anyone can do about it.Therefore, we can conclude that all efforts to find a cure for AIDS are a
waste of time. Nebiyu A.
 10. Appeal to Ignorance
 committed when the lack to evidence, knowledge, proof, or information
about something is used to support the conclusion.
 the P asserts that nothing is proved about something, & the C then certainly asserts
something about that thing.
 Ps report that nothing is known or proved, & then a C is drawn.
 AI will be committed when:-
A) Mr. X argues that smthing is the case (True) b/z no one has proved to be False. OR
B) Mr. X argues that something is not the case (False) b/z no one has proved to be True.
NOTE:-- 1. Lack of proof cannot be an evidence for anything.
2. But, there are two exceptions:-
a. In the case of qualified investigators, researchers, or scientists
investigate smthg within their range of expertise, & find nothing
about it …..
b. In the legal/courtroom procedure; If the prosecutor fails
to prove the guilt of the defendant, it will be argued that the
defendant is not guilty.
Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

Examples –
1: Nobody has ever proved the existence of ghosts. Therefore, we conclude that ghosts are
mere figments of the imagination.

2: Nobody has ever disproved the existence of God. Thus, we conclude that God exist.

3: Teams of scientists attempted over several decades to detect the existence of the 10th
planet, & they failed to do so. Therefore, the 10th planet does not exist. (Not fallacy)

4: Members of the jury have heard the prosecution present its case against the
defendant. Nothing, however, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Therefore,
under the law, the defendant is not guilty. (Not fallacy)

Evaluate the below argument made by president Donald Trump

Donald Trump twittered on 16 June, 2017: “After 7 months of investigation and
committee hearings about my „collusion with the Russians‟, nobody has been
able to show any proof. Sad!” [Therefore, he implicitly concluded that he is
innocent.]
Nebiyu A.
 11. Hasty Generalization
 It is committed when a general conclusion is drawn from an
atypical sample. OR
 Committed when an arguer generalizes about a thing or an event
based on insufficient evidence:
 vary limited information &
 unrepresentative samples about it.
 Too small sample, or
 Non random sample

 This fallacy proceeds from a statement of unrepresentative sample

to a claim about the whole population (large group).
 It is usually committed by individuals who develop a negative attitude or
prejudice towards others‟ belief, language, ethnic origin, political
position, color, &…etc. Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…
Example - 1:
Ten Arab fundamentalists hijacked planes & crashed them into the world Trade
center in NewYork city.Therefore, Arabs are a pack of religious fanatics prone to
violence.
Example - 2:
100,000 voters from California county were surveyed on their choice for governor,
& 68% said they intended to vote for the Republican candidate. Clearly the
Republican candidate will be elected.
Example - 3:
* Females towards Males….
* Males towards Females …..

Nebiyu A.
 12. False Cause
 This fallacy occurs whenever the link b/n Ps & C depends on some
imagined causal connection that properly does not exist, (or minor
causal connection);
 An attempt to suppose that „X‟ causes „Y‟, where as „X‟ probably
does not cause „Y‟ at all.
 In other words, it is committed when someone infers causal
explanations from Ps, which cannot provide sufficient evidence to it.
 The fallacy can be divided into THREE types:
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
B. Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy
C. Oversimplified Cause Fallacy
 Cont’d…

A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (“after this, therefore on account of this.” )
 committed when we arrive at a certain conclusion by claiming that one
thing is the cause of another thing merely b/z it precedes the other in time
(or a belief that two things are causally connected b/z one happen after the other).
 A particular event „X‟ is caused by event „Y‟ merely b/z „X‟ follows „Y‟ or
b/z „Y‟ precedes „X‟ chronologically.
 Though, drawing a conclusion only based on temporal precedence (chronological r/p)
would not be logically sufficient.
 Post hoc fallacy usually occurs in cultural superstitions.
 However, such kinds of assertion are not logically convincing as they confuse consequences
with temporal precedence.
Example: Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Therefore, since I’m
dying to talk to somebody right now, I should jump in the shower.

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

B. Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy („not the cause for the cause‟)
 committed when someone argues that something is the cause of an
effect when it is not in reality & confusion occurs b/n cause & effect.
 The conclusion depends on the idea that “two things are causally
connected b/z they happen over the same interval of time.”
 Other ways of committing this fallacy is mistaking the cause for the
effect, & selecting/picking the wrong thing as the cause.
Example: There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before & more
HIV victims ever before; so, to eliminate the HIV/AIDS epidemic we must abolish
the church.

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

C. Oversimplified Cause Fallacy

 committed when a multitude of causes combine to produce an effect,
& an arguer selected one of these causes & threats as if it is the only
cause.
 Such a selection may be done deliberately or intentionally.

Example: Why most students fail in logic is because teachers do not come to
class regularly.

Nebiyu A.
 13. Slippery Slope
 This fallacy is a Variety of false cause fallacies.
 Committed when draws a conclusion from an alleged unlikely chain of
reactions, but there is no sufficient reasons to think that the chain
reactions will actually take place. OR
 Committed when the C depends on the occurrence of a chain of reaction of events, &
there is no good reason to believe that the chain reaction will actually occur.
 In other words, Committed when an arguer assumes that series of events happen or follow
one from the other as a result of the first event, action or cause in a series.

Example: It is not a good idea to put your child in a day care center. Separation from parents causes isolation
and alienation soon the child becomes incapable of relating to other children, and this inability to relate causes
depression. As the child gets older, the depression leads to psychosis.The final result is either suicide or a life wasted in
a mental institution.
Nebiyu A.
 14. Weak Analogy
 Committed basically when the analogy or similarity b/n two things or
situations is not strong enough to support the C to be drawn.
 Conclusion depends on defective (not strong) analogy.
 In other words, this fallacy will be committed when the significant differences b/n two or
more things compared are ignored or when two contrasted things are considered alike only
in unimportant ways.

Example: No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on.Why should
anyone be expected to get married without premarital sex?
 However, there will be a strong or correct link b/n the Ps & the C so that the
argument is good or it is with no fallacy when
 properties cited are relevant b/n two or more things &
Nebiyu A.
 the differences b/n the objects have taken into account.
 3. Fallacies of Presumption
 FP: occur when the Ps presume what they purport to prove (OR when
arguers create the presumption that the Ps are true & complete, but in fact
not)
 when the assumption given in the P is not supported by proof, but an arguer
maintained that it doesn‟t need proof, & invites R/L accept it as it is.
 Its 4 fallacies:- Begging the question; Complex question; False dichotomy; & Suppressed evidence

 4 of these fallacies commonly share TWO basic features:-

1. Assume a given P as if true, correct or proved; but, in fact

 The P is incomplete or questionable,
 The P thus needs further proof, explanation or evidence

2. Involves tricky & confusing expressions for concealing the wrong assumptions
stated in the P.

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

15. Begging the Question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate Ps are adequate:-
* by Leaving out a possibly false key P; or
* by Restating a possibly false P as the C; or
* by Reasoning in a circle.
NOTE:- The argument must be Valid, & the actual source of support for the C is not apparent.
The 1st form of this fallacy: is by leaving a possibly false key P out of the argument
while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the C.
 It is the most common way of committing this fallacy
Example: “Murder is morally wrong.This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.”
 The 2nd form of this fallacy: occurs when the C of an argument merely restates a
possibly false P in slightly different language.
 In such an argument, the P supports the C, & the C tends to reinforce the P.
Example: Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future for the simple reason that if a
person has no vision of the future he could not possibly preach revolution.
 The 3rd form of this fallacy: involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a
first P that is possibly false.
Example: Harar brewery clearly produces the finest beer in Ethiopia.We know they produce the finest beer because
they have the best chemist.This is because they can afford to pay them more than other brewery. Obviously they can
afford to pay them more because they produce the finest beer in the country. Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

16. Complex Question: Occurs when Multiple questions are hidden in a single question.
 Presumes that a question can be answered by a simple "yes," "no," or other brief answer,
when in fact a more sophisticated answer is needed.
 The questions are actually formulating hidden arguments
 Usually complex questions are used to trap the respondents to admitting something
 It is a common device to lawyers & judges when examining defendants to admit crime

Example: “ Have you stopped cheating on exams?”

“Where did you hide the Marijuana you were smoking?”

Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

17. False Dichotomy/dilemma: arguer presents two unlikely options as if they

are the only one available when in fact there are other options.
 It is committed when a disjunctive P presents two unlikely alternatives as if they
were the only ones available, & the arguer then eliminates the undesirable
alternative, leaving the desirable one as the C.
 Presumes that an "either ... or ..." P presents jointly exhaustive alternatives, when
in fact it does not
 often the disjunctive premise is false, or at least probably false.

Example: “Either we elect EPRDF (Prosperity Party), or the country’s fate will be
worsened. So that the choice is obvious that we will elect EPRDF (Prosperity Party).”
 However, if one of the alternatives in the disjunctive P is true, then fallacy
is not committed.
Example, the following argument is valid & sound:
Either Abay River is in Ethiopia or it is in South Africa. River Abay is not in South
Africa.Therefore, River Abay is in Ethiopia.
Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d…

18. Suppressed Evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a

different C.
 Often deliberately omits the key P, & instead emphases a certain point
 most common in advertisement
 The most common suppressed evidence fallacy appears in Cs based on advertisements.
Example: The advertise for Fried Chicken says,“Buy a bucket of chicken & have a barrel of fun!”
Therefore, if we buy a bucket of that chicken, we will be guaranteed to have lots of fun.
 Another way committed this fallacy is by ignoring important events that have occurred
with the passage of time that render an inductive conclusion improbable.
Example: “Type writer repair men have earned a good living for the last 75 years.Therefore, type
writer repair men will earn a good living in the future.”
 Another form of this fallacy is committed by arguers who quote passages out of context
from sources such as the constitution to support a C that the passage was not intended to support.
 The suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to the form of begging the question in
which the arguer leaves a key P out of the argument.
 The difference is that Suppressed Evidence leaves out a P that requires a different C,
while Begging the Question leaves out a P that is needed to support the stated C.
Nebiyu A.
 However, there are cases where the two fallacies overlap.
 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 The 2 Fallacies of Ambiguity commonly share the following basic features:
1. They arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either
the Ps or the C (or both).

2. Involves an ambiguous use of word in the argument;

 An expression is ambiguous if it is subject to d/ft interpretations in a given context.

 Fallacies of ambiguity committed when the C of an argument depends:-

 on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase, or

 on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

The 2 Fallacies of ambiguity

19. Equivocation
20. Amphiboly Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d….

19. Equivocation: C depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase. OR

 Occurs when a word in a single argument are used in two different senses which in turn leads to a C which is not supported by its Ps. OR

 Occurs when a single word/phrase in the P of an argument is used in two different senses
or contexts & when these two contexts are wrongly assumed as one or similar in the C.
Examples: Some triangles are obtuse.Whatever is obtuse is ignorant.Thus, same triangles are ignorant.
: All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.Thus, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
: We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defense of the innocent. Thus, we have a duty to speak out in
defense of the innocent.

20. Amphiboly: C depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically/structurally

ambiguous statement. OR
occurs when someone misinterprets a statement which is ambiguous b/z of some structural
defects & draws a C based on such misinterpretation.
Examples:
1- Professor John said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology lecture hall. It must be the case that
a number of heart failures have occurred there recently.
2- John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
3- Beza said that she painted her picture hanging on the wall of her bedroom. Obviously Beza is quite an acrobat.
Nebiyu A.
 Cont’d….

In the 1st example, the ambiguity concerns what takes place in the biology lecture hall; is it the lecture
or the heart failures? The correct interpretation is probably the former. The ambiguity can be eliminated
 by inserting commas ("Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture, about heart failure, in the biology
lecture hall") or
 by moving the ambiguous modifier ("Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture in the biology lecture
hall about heart failure").

In the 2nd example, the pronoun "he" has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to
John or to Henry. Perhaps John told Henry that Henry had made a mistake.

In the 3rd example, …..

 Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical ambiguities

NOTE: 2 important ways in which Amphiboly differ from Equivocation:

1- Equivocation is always b/z of ambiguity of meaning of one or more words, while Amphiboly involves
structural defects in a statement.
2- Amphiboly usually involves a mistake committed by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made by
someone else, while in Equivocation the ambiguity is typically the arguer‟s own creation.
Nebiyu A.
 5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
21. Composition: Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.
Example: Each atom in this table is invisible to the naked eye.Therefore, the table is invisible
to the naked eye.
: Sodium & chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons.
Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
 But, there is a legitimate transference of an attribute from parts on to the whole, fallacy will
never be occurred.
Example: Each atom in this piece of chalk has mass.Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.

22. Division: Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts. (or from
class to members)

Example: Salt is a non-poisonous compound.Therefore, its component elements, sodium

& chlorine, are non-poisonous.
 But, such a transference of attribute from a whole onto its parts (or from class to members)
is not always illegitimate or illogical.
Example: The piece of chalk has mass.Thus, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have mass.