Chapter Five

Logical Reasoning and Fallacies

5.1. The Meaning of Fallacy
The word ‘fallacy’ is a general term that refers to a logical defect or fault that a certain argument exhibits in its
structural arrangement or reasoning process, or in the contents of its statements used as premises or a conclusion,
for various reasons, other than merely false premises. In general, it is a violation of four general criteria of a good
argument, which specifically evaluate the relevance, acceptability, sufficiency, and rebuttablity of the premises.

A good argument must have premises that: are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, are acceptable to a logical
person, together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and anticipate and provide an
effective rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to the argument or to the position supported by it.

Fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually it involves either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of
some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both). They are often committed because of the problem
in the reasoning process or the form of the argument, or defects in the contents of the statements used as premises
or a conclusion. For that matter, both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if they do, they are
either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument. Conversely, if an argument is unsound or
uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).

5.2. Types of Fallacies

Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal. A fallacy committed due to a structural defect
of argument is known as a formal fallacy. Formal fallacies may be identified through mere inspection of the form
or structure of an argument. An informal fallacy is committed due to a defect in the very content of an argument,
other than in its structure of form. Informal fallacies cannot be identified through mere inspection of the form or
structure of an argument. Only a detail analysis to be applied on the content of an argument can reveal the source
of the trouble.

Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms, such as categorical
syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms. The following categorical syllogism contains a
formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
This argument has the following form:
All A are B.
All C are B.
-------------------
All A are C.

1
Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument is invalid. The fact that A, B, and C stand
respectively for ‘‘tigers,’’ ‘‘animals,’’ and ‘‘mammals’’ is irrelevant in detecting the fallacy. The problem may be
traced to the second premise. If the letters C and B are interchanged, the form becomes valid, and the original
argument, with the same change introduced, also becomes valid (but unsound).

5.2.1. Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are those mistakes in reasoning process of an argument that cannot be recognized by analyzing
the structure of an argument, but only through analysis of the content of the argument. Only the meaning of the
words, how the statements are constructed and how inferences are made that reveals the faulty reasoning. Consider
the following example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one to think that it has the following form:
All A are B.
All B are C.
----------------
All A are C.

Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the argument is clearly invalid
because it has true premises and a false conclusion. An analysis of the content- that is, the meaning of the words-
reveals the source of the trouble. The word ‘‘plants’’ is used in two different senses. In the first premise it means a
building where something is manufactured, and in the second it means a life form. Thus, the argument really has
the following invalid form:
All A are B.
All C are D.
------------------
All A are D.

5.2.1.1. Types of Informal Fallacies

Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies. Aristotle himself
identified thirteen and separated them into two groups. The work of subsequent logicians has produced dozens
more, rendering the task of classifying them even more difficult. The presentation that follows divides twenty-two
informal fallacies into five groups: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption,
fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

5.2.1.1.1. Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are those, (except missing the point) which are committed chiefly due to a provision of
premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the

2
conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically. In an argument that
commits a fallacy of relevance the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional. Unlike the others,
the fallacy of missing the point is committed due to an irrelevant conclusion. There are eight types of fallacies of
relevance: Appeal to force, Appeal to pity, Appeal to people, Argument against the person, Accident, Straw man,
Missing the point, and Red Herring.

1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the ‘‘Stick’’)

It occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly
that some harm will come to him/her if he/she does not accept the conclusion. In other words it occurs when a
conclusion defended by a threat to the well- being of those who do not accept the conclusion.

This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well- being of the listener. But
this threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion even though it seems psychologically
relevant. Consider the following argument in which the arguer uses unjustified physical threat on the listeners.

1. Mr. Kebde you accused me of fraud and embezzlements. You have to drop the charge you filed against
me. You have to remember that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both you and your family members if
you do not drop your case. Got it?

This is a fallacious argument; the arguer is threatening the listener to abandon his charge. From this example you
can see that the conclusion is supported by force. The threat “accident” has no logical bearing on the conclusion
however (you have to drop your charge).

Appeal to force need not use sheer physical force to support a certain conclusion. Consider the following
argument.

 Lately there has been a lot of negative criticism of our policy on dental benefits. Let me tell you
something, people. If you want to keep working here, you need to know that our policy is fair and
reasonable. I won’t have anybody working here who doesn’t know this.

Now this is a blatant example, which shows an explicit use of psychological force to impose a conclusion. The
arguer is trying to impose the conclusion that you (workers) should accept the dental benefit policy as fair and
reasonable. The reason given however does not support the conclusion. It says that ‘any worker who does not
accept this conclusion would be fired.’ But a threat to loss a job cannot constitute a reason to support the
proposition that the dental policy is reasonable and fair. Thus, it is unjustified appeal to force.

The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader or listener
from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at least questionable.
Finally, a note of caution: The fact that an argument mentions a threat does not necessarily make it a fallacy.

3
 2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
The appeal to pity is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in one’s audience when the
statements that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion. In appeal to pity if the arguer succeeds in
evoking sufficiently strong feelings of pity, he or she may distract the audience from the logic of the situation and
create a desire to accept the conclusion. Consider the following argument.

1. The Managerial position should be given to Mr. Hailu. Hailu has six hungry children to feed and his
wife desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight.

The conclusion of this argument is “the Managerial position should be given to Hailu”. But the conclusion is not
logically relevant to the pathetic condition of the arguer though they do psychologically. It may be pitiful to see
people under these conditions; but this does not mean that such conditions are logically relevant in every situation
to decide. A certain position should be open to people to fill when they have the necessary qualification. The
relevant logical reason in this situation for Hailu to qualify for the position is if he fulfills the necessary
educational experience. But ‘he has six hungry children to feed and his wife needs operation’ does not lend reason
to accept the conclusion. So this is illegitimate appeal to pity.

There is a tendency to take argument from pity as inherently fallacious. But this is not always the case. There are
arguments from pity, which are reasonable and plausible. There are situations where compassion or sympathy
could be a legitimate response for some situations.

Most society values helping people in time of danger; showing compassion and sympathy is a natural response in
some situation. If some group of people are in danger, helping out may require appeal to the compassion or pity of
other people. Consider the following argument.

 Twenty children survive earthquakes that kill most people in the village. These children lost their parents.
They are out of school, and home in the street. Unless we each of us contribute money their life will be in
danger in the coming days. We should help these children as much as we can.

As you can see this is argument from compassion, in which the conclusion is based on the feeling of sympathy.
The natural response of compassion and pity is a legitimate and reasonable response. These children deserve
special consideration or compassion; they deserve help from the community. One of the main reasons for this
deservingness is that the situation in which they found themselves in is due to factor beyond their control. They are
not responsible for the situation in which they are in. If people are not responsible for the situation in which they
are in; it is perfectly reasonable and sensible to show compassion for these people.

In fact, this is the main justification for some social policies to help out old people, disables, orphan and other
people who are in bad situation due to factor which is beyond their control. Helping people in problem when they

4
are not responsible is reasonable. But if the people are in bad situation in which they are responsible as a cause,
showing of compassion may be illegitimate and argument in which the conclusion is depend on illegitimate appeal
to compassion is a fallacy - appeal to pity fallacy.

3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others. Feeling of
being part of community and belongingness are some of the most important humans needs. The appeal to the
people strikes these desires and needs to get acceptance for conclusion. Or the appeal to the people (or ad populum
fallacy) is an attempt to persuade a person (or group) by appealing to these desires and needs.

Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: direct and indirect. The direct approach occurs when an
arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for
his or her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality. This is the strategy used by nearly every
propagandist and demagogue.

In the indirect approach, the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more
individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach is very
common in most advertising industries. There are three recognizable forms in indirect approach: Bandwagon,
Vanity, and Snobbery.

I. Bandwagon fallacy
Bandwagon fallacy is a kind of fallacy that commonly appeals to the desire of individuals to be considered as part
of the group or community in which they are living. One of the characteristics of community or group is that they
share some values and norms. Not only they share but also every individual are expected to manifest group
conformity to these shared values. Bandwagon fallacy just uses these emotions and feelings to get acceptance for a
certain conclusion. For instance, consider the following example.
A. The majority of people in Ethiopia accept the opinion that child circumcision is the right thing to do.
Thus, you also should accept that child circumcision is the right thing to do.

This argument presents appeal to bandwagon and if the person considers that child circumcision is the right thing
to do because the majority of people accepts it, then this argument commits the\ fallacy of bandwagon.

B. Appeal to Vanity
The appeal to vanity often associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or imitated, the idea
being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it. For example:
1. Heineken is the best alcoholic beverage of the year. Even athlete Haile G/Selassie likes its test.
Never miss it!

5
 2. Who is going to wear this fashion dress, a dress worn by famous artist Aster Awoke in her New Year
Millennium hall show!
C. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy
Before discussing about snobbery fallacy, let us look into the meaning of snob. Snob means a person who admires
people in higher classes too much and has no respect for people in the lower classes or a person who thinks
individuals from higher social classes are much better than other people because they like things many people do
not like.
Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as superior to others. This fallacy appeal
individuals and their desires to be regarded as different and better. Consider the following argument.
 The newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is not for everyone to drink. But you are different from other
people, aren’t you? Therefore, the newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is for you.

4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument
and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person
himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person.

The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem circumstantial,
and the tu quoque.

A. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy

In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first
person. Consider the following example.
A. In defending animal rights, Mr. Abebe argues that the government should legislate a minimum legal
requirement to any individuals or groups who want to farm animals. He argues that this is the first step
in avoiding unnecessary pain on animals and protecting them from abuse. But we should not accept his
argument because he is a divorced drunk person who is unable to protect even his own family.

The conclusion of the argument says that we should reject the idea of legislating a minimum legal requirement to
protect animals. But what reason is offered to support the conclusion? That Abebe is a drunk and divorced person
is the only reason given. But it is impossible to conclude that we should reject legislation a minimum legal
requirement to protect animals from the idea that Abebe is a drunk and divorced person. This is just an explicit and
direct personal attack.

B. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal
abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain

6
circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed
to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously. Consider the following example:
 Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of Nations that member states should give hand to
Ethiopia to expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the member states should not listen to the king.
Haileselassie I argue in this way because he wants to resume his power once the Italian are expelled from
Ethiopia.

This argument is fallacious because the arguer does not pay serious attention to the substance of the argument of
the king. He just tried to discredit the idea of the king by association it with the circumstance with the Italian
evacuation. He did not attack directly why member states should not help the country.

C. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy

The tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem argument,
except that the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. The
second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict
with the latter’s conclusion. See the following example:

1. Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette because you
yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself is
smoking?

The argument is fallacious because whether the doctor smokes is irrelevant to whether his premises support the
conclusion that the patient should quit smoking cigarette; and the fact that the doctor himself smokes does not
make smoking right. Smoking is wrong whether the advisor himself did the action or not.

5) Accident
The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the premises and then wrongly applied to the
specific case mentioned in the conclusion. Consider the following example:
1. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Mr. Dawite should not be arrested
for his speech that incited the riot last week.

In this example, the general rule is that freedom of speech is normally guaranteed, and the specific case is the
speech made by Mr. Dawite. Because the speech incited a riot, the rule does not apply.

6) Straw Man
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily
attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been

7
demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that
the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well.

The following are the main features of straw man fallacy. First there are two individuals or groups discussing about
some controversial issues; the two has opposite views. One of the arguers presents his views about the issues and
the other is a critic. Second the critic however does not rationally criticize the main or the substantive argument of
the opponent. Rather he/she criticizes ideas which are the misrepresentation of the main content of the argument.
He/she does so for easy attacking the argument. Third the critic concludes, by criticizing the misrepresented ideas
that he/she knock down the main ideas. Since the critic does not attack the main ideas, rather he/she criticized the
misrepresented argument; one can argues he/she did not criticize the argument at all. Consider the following
argument.
1. Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the country and thus it should be replaced by
geographical federalism. But we should not accept his proposal. He just wants to take the country back to
the previous regime. Geographical federalism was the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical
regime. We do not want to go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr. Belay’s proposal.

This argument involves two persons: Mr. Belay and his critic. Mr. Belay argues for geographical federalism and
his critic opposing the view. This critics show that the critic do not refute or oppose the idea of geographical
federalism. Rather he first misrepresented geographical federalism as going back to the past and then he criticizes
the past regime and by doing so he believed the real argument knocked down. But he did not criticize the substance
of the argument; he criticizes distorted ideas which do not represent his opponent. This is an example of how straw
man fallacy is committed.

When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should keep in mind two things. First, they have to try to identify the
original argument, which is misrepresented by the critic. Second, they should look for what gone wrong in the
misrepresentation of the argument. Is the critic exaggerated the original argument or is he introduced a new
assumption which is not presumed by the original argument.

7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

All the fallacies we have discussed thus far have been instances of cases where the premises of an argument are
irrelevant to the conclusion. Missing the point, however, illustrates a special form of irrelevance. It occurs when
the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely
related to the correct conclusion, is drawn. Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed, he or she
should be able to identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply. Ignoratio elenchi
means “ignorance of the proof.” The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises and,
as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely. Consider the following argument.

8
 1. The world is in the process of globalizing more than ever. The world economy is becoming more and more
interconnected. Multinational companies and supra national institutions are taking power from local
companies and national governments. The livelihood of people is randomly affected by action and
decision made on the other side of the planet and this process benefits only the rich nations at the expense
of the poor. What should be done? The answer is obvious: poor nations should detach themselves from
the process.

Are the premises and the conclusion in this argument related? It is unrelated. The correct conclusion would be to
redirect globalization in a way that is beneficial for both the poor and the rich, not to detach countries from the
process. The above conclusion however is logically not related with the premises. After all, detachment from
globalization process is more costly for poor countries. It is better to regulate the process of globalization than to
detach altogether from the system if that is possible.

8) Red Herring
This fallacy is closely associated with missing the point. It is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of
the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then
finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has
been established. By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the argument.

This fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent. A red herring (smoked and
dried fish species) is dragged across the trail with the aim of leading the dogs astray. Since red herrings have an
especially potent scent (caused in part by the smoking process used to preserve them), only the best dogs will
follow the original scent.

To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the argument without the
reader or listener noticing it. One way of doing this is to change the subject to one that is subtly related to the
original subject. Consider the following argument:
1. The editors of Addis Flower newspaper have accused our company of being one of the city’s worst water
polluters. But Addis flower newspaper is responsible for much more pollution than we are. After all, they
own a Paper Company, and that company discharges tons of chemical residues into the city’s river every
day.

There are two individuals here: a certain editor accusing a certain company about its impact on water quality and
the response of representative of the company. The editor accused the company as a worst water polluter. But the
response from the representative is not about why it is not a worst polluter; rather it changes the topic into the
activity of the paper company in which the editor is working and accused the company as a worst water polluter. In
other words, attention is diverted from the original topic into a new topic.

9
A second way of using the red herring effectively is to change the subject to some flashy, eye-catching topic that is
virtually guaranteed to distract the listener’s attention. Topics of this sort include sex, crime, scandal, immorality,
death, and any other topic that might serve as the subject of gossip. Here is an example of this technique:
1. Professor Conway complains of inadequate parking on our campus. But did you know that last year
Conway carried on a torrid love affair with a member of the English Department? The two used to meet
every day for clandestine sex in the copier room. Apparently they didn’t realize how much you can see
through that fogged glass window. Even the students got an eyeful. Enough said about Conway.

The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy because both have the effect of drawing the
reader/listener off the track. This confusion can usually be avoided by remembering the unique ways in which they
accomplish this purpose. In the straw man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent’s argument and concludes
by knocking down the distorted argument. In the red herring, on the other hand, the arguer ignores the opponent’s
argument (if there is one) and subtly changes the subject. Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies, one should attempt
to determine whether the arguer has knocked down a distorted argument or simply changed the subject. Also keep
in mind that straw man always involves two arguers, at least implicitly, whereas a red herring often does not.

Both the red herring and straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the point, because all
three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. To avoid this confusion, one should note that both red herring and straw
man proceed by generating a new set of premises, whereas missing the point does not. Straw man draws a
conclusion from new premises that are obtained by distorting an earlier argument, and red herring, if it draws any
conclusion at all, draws one from new premises obtained by changing the subject. Missing the point, however,
draws a conclusion from the original premises. Also, in the red herring and straw man, the conclusion, if there is
one, is relevant to the premises from which it is drawn; but in missing the point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the
premises from which it is drawn. Finally, remember that missing the point serves in part as a kind of catchall
fallacy, and a fallacious argument should not be identified as a case of missing the point if one of the other fallacies
clearly fits.

5.2.1.1.2. Fallacies of Weak Induction

In some arguments, premises provide strong reason for the conclusion to be acceptable. Sometimes, however,
premises may not successfully support the conclusion. If premises do not support the conclusion strongly then the
resulting argument will be labeled as Weak Induction. The fallacies of weak induction occur not because the
premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case with the eight fallacies of relevance, but because
the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

There are different kinds of fallacies of weak induction and the following are the most important ones: Appeal to
Unqualified Authority, Hasty Generalization, False Cause, Weak Analogy, Slippery Slope, and Appeal to
Ignorance.

10
 1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
The appeal to unreliable authority (or ad verecundiam fallacy) is an appeal to an authority when the reliability of
the authority may be reasonably doubtable. When an appeal to unreliable authority is made, the arguer assumes,
without sufficient warrant, that the authority in question is reliable. When there is legitimate doubt about whether
an authority is reliable, then the appeal to authority is fallacious. Consider the following examples.
1. It is always better to drink white wine with fish. Donald John Trump says so, he must know what he is
talking about, and he is the president.
In this example, you can see the following structure in the argument:
 Donald John Trump says that it is always better to drink white wine with fish.
 Donald John Trump is President.
 If someone is president, then they must always be knowledge about all the subjects they talk about.
 Therefore, it is always better to drink white wine with fish.
2. We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as football player Lionel Mesi, have
publicly stated their opposition to it.

2) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and
the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance. The
issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved.
Observe the following example:

1. People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims that Haileselassie I
of Ethiopia is the descendant of King David of Israel and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we
must conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of King David of Israel.

Conversely, the following argument commits the same fallacy:

1. People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the
descendant of King David of Israel, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that
Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is in fact the descendant of King David of Israel.

The premises of an argument are supposed to provide positive evidence for the conclusion. The premises of these
arguments, however, tell us nothing about the alleged relationship between Haileselassie I of Ethiopia and Kind
David of Israel; rather, they tell us about what certain unnamed and unidentified people have tried unsuccessfully
to do. This evidence may provide some slight reason for believing the conclusion, but certainly not sufficient
reason.

Appeal to ignorance has two exceptions:

11
1. The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of
expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes
positive evidence about the question. Consider, for example, the following argument:
 Teams of scientists attempted over a number of decades to detect the existence of the luminiferous aether,
and all failed to do so. Therefore, the luminiferous aether does not exist.
The premises of this argument are true. Given the circumstances, it is likely that the scientists in question would
have detected the aether if in fact it did exist. Since they did not detect it, it probably does not exist. Thus, we can
say that the above argument is inductively strong (but not deductively valid).
It is not always necessary, however, that the investigators have special qualifications. The kinds of qualifications
needed depend on the situation. Sometimes the mere ability to see and report what one sees is sufficient.
2. The second exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom procedure. In the United States and
Canada, among other countries, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecutor in a
criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defense may
justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty. For example:
 Members of the jury, you 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.
This argument commits no fallacy because ‘‘not guilty’’ means, in the legal sense, that guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt has not been proved. The defendant may indeed have committed the crime of which he or she is accused,
but if the prosecutor fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered ‘‘not guilty.’’

3) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

The fallacy of hasty generalization is just the opposite of accident. This fallacy is committed whenever one arrives
to a conclusion, on the basis of very little evidence or whereby generalization is asserted or concluded based on:
very limited information, inadequate information, and unrepresentative sample. For example:
1. Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to know the reading skill among young people. It has found
out that, among ten young people it interviewed, none of them read a book for the last two years. The
conclusion is obvious: all young people in the country do not have the culture of reading books.

In these arguments, a conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises that mention only a few instances.
Because such small, atypical samples are not sufficient to support a general conclusion, the argument commits a
hasty generalization.

Hasty generalization is also called converse accident, because it proceeds from particular to general (the premises
deal with a particular issue, but the conclusion generalizes that something is true or false merely based on the
knowledge of the particular issue-the sample) while accident proceeds from the general to the particular (the
premises deal with a general issues, but the conclusion deals with something particular).

12
 4) False Cause Fallacy
The fallacy of false cause commits when the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined
causal connection that probably does not exist. In this fallacy, when the arguer in his or her argument oversimplified
the cause of a certain event, makes a kind of confusion between the cause and effect, or identifies a certain event as
the cause of another event merely on the ground that the first event, which the arguer identifies as a cause, occurs
before the new action. There are three varieties of false cause fallacy, namely, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy,
Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy, and Oversimplified cause.
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy)
The Latin expression Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy traditionally refers to “after this, therefore because of
this, or after this, therefore the consequence of this”. Sometimes this fallacy is called Post Hoc Fallacy. The post
hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy occurs when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed
cause occurred before the proposed effect. Post hoc fallacy presupposes just because one event precedes another
event. The first event causes the second. That is event Y is caused by event X because event “Y” follows event “X”,
or X precedes Y in time. This way of reasoning has the following form: event “X” occurs before event “Y”;
therefore, event “X” is the cause for event “Y”.
Examples:
1. During the last two months, the football team has worn red ribbons in their hairs, and the team was
defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the team should get rid of those red ribbons.
2. Every time I wash the car, it starts to rain shortly afterwards. Therefore, my car-washing activities are
causing outbursts of precipitation in the clouds.
The above two arguments commit the post hoc fallacy. This is because of the fact that the arguer wrongly thinks
those actions which come before another action in time as a cause for the next event. The first argument, for
instance, considers the wearing of red ribbons in their hairs as a cause for the defeating of the football team. The
second argument also considers the car-washing activity as the cause for outburst of precipitation in the clouds.
B. Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy
The Latin phrase Non causa pro causa fallacy has been traditionally interpreted as “not the cause for the cause”.
This variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the
mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession.
In general, this fallacy considers something as the cause of an effect when in reality it is not; and on the other hand
when a kind of confusion occurs between the causes and effect of a certain event.
Examples:
1. There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before, and more HIV victims than ever before, so,
to eliminate the pandemic we must abolish the churches.
2. Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $5,000. Therefore, the best way to ensure that
Mr. Ferguson will become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least $5,000.

13
These two arguments commit non causa pro causa fallacy. In the first argument, the increase in churches is only
correlated with the increase in the HIV pandemic. And obviously, the simple fact that one event is correlated with
another is not sufficient reason to consider that one caused the other. In the second argument, increases in salary
causes success as an executive- the arguer fails to leave room for other possible causes, so, the arguer mistakes the
cause for the effect.

C. Over Simplified Cause Fallacy

This variety of false cause fallacy is more probably committed than the other two varieties. The Over simplified
cause fallacy occurs when a large number of causes are responsible for an effect, but the arguer selects just one of
these causes and represents it as if it is the sole cause of the event.
Example:
1. The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has been declining for years. Clearly our
teachers just are not doing their jobs these days.
The argument of the above example commits over simplified cause fallacy. For the reason that in this argument the
cause for the declining of the quality of education is not limited to one single cause though there are many factors
that can be considered as the cause for this effect. For instance, to mention some of factors that are responsible for
the decline quality of education are: lack of discipline in the home; parental un-involvement; and, drug use by
students, and etc.

5) Slippery Slope Fallacy

Slippery slope fallacy occurs when the arguer assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there is insufficient
evidence that one (or more) events in the chain will cause the others; when there is no actual or real connection
among the chain of events. The chains of causes are supposedly like a steep slope - if you take one step on the
slope; you’ll slide all the way down. And since you don’t want to slide all the way down, don’t take the first step.
Consider the following example.
1. Against cultural, social and religious norms of Ethiopia, a Chinese firm was authorized to run donkey
slaughter house in Bishoftu. But this company should be closed. If donkeys are continuously slaughtered
and exported, then Ethiopian who works in the abattoir will start to eat donkey meat. Then members of
the family of these workers will be the next to eat donkey meat. This gradually leads their neighbors and
the village to accept the same practice. Finally, the whole country will follow which in turn leads to the
total collapse of Ethiopian food culture.

The links in this alleged chain are weak. This is not to say that donkey slaughter house is risk free practice. It is
only to say that, logically speaking, when causal connections are claimed, there needs to be sufficient evidence that
the connections are genuine. And to claim that opening donkey slaughter house in the country necessary leads to
adopting donkey meat as a culture is plainly to make a claim that is insufficiently supported by the evidence.

The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. Deciding whether a slippery slope fallacy has
been committed can be difficult when there is uncertainty whether the alleged chain reaction will or will not occur.
14
But many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain action or
policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to trump up support for his or her position by citing all sorts of dire
consequences that will result if the action is taken or the policy followed. In such cases there is usually little
problem in identifying the argument as a slippery slope.
6) Weak Analogy
The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy between things, situations and circumstance is not
strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn. Evaluating an argument having this form requires a two-step
procedure: (1) Identify the attributes a, b, c,... that the two entities A and B share in common, and (2) determine
how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c, . . . If some causal or systematic
relation exists between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak. Consider the following
argument;
1. When an individual is diagnosed as having cancer, every effort is made to kill the cancerous growth,
whether by surgery, radiation treatment, or chemotherapy. But murderers and kidnappers are cancerous
growths on society. Therefore, when these criminals are apprehended and convicted, they should be
treated like any other cancer and eliminated by capital punishment.

This argument is based on a similarity between the growth of cancer in human body and the existence of criminals
in society. It is true that when a certain cell is identified as cancer every effort would be made to kill it because it is
impossible to rehabilitate the cell and the only safe measure is to kill the cell. But this is not true in human being.
Even if a criminal is bad for society, society avoids crime not by killing criminals but by educating and
rehabilitating individual criminals. Thus this analogy is fallacy because the conclusion is based on weak or
inadequate analogy between a human being and a cell.

5.2.1.1.3. Fallacies of Presumption

These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for
believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to prove. Begging the question
presumes that the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not, and complex
question presumes that a question can be answered by a simple “yes,” “no,” or other brief answer when a more
sophisticated answer is needed. False dichotomy presumes that an “either . . . or . . .” statement presents jointly
exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not, and suppressed evidence presumes that no important evidence has
been overlooked by the premises when in fact it has. In this lesson, we will discuss the fallacies of presumption.

1) Begging the Question

The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises
provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a
possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle. The Latin name for this fallacy, petition
principii, means “request for the source.” The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so

15
the argument is said to beg the question. After reading or hearing the argument, the observer is inclined to ask,
“But how do you know X?” where X is the needed support.

Examples:

1. Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
2. Of course humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how similar they are.

The first of these arguments begs the question “How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?” The second
begs the question “Does the mere fact that humans and apes look similar imply that they evolved from common
ancestors?”

2) Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question is 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 them. Every complex question presumes the existence of a
certain condition. When the respondent’s answer is added to the complex question, an argument emerges that
establishes the presumed condition. Thus, although not an argument as such, a complex question involves an
implicit argument. This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he
or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge.

Examples:

1. Have you stopped cheating on exams?

2. Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?

Let us suppose the respondent answers “yes” to the first question and “under the bed” to the second. The following
arguments emerge:

 You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered “yes.”Therefore, it follows
that you have cheated in the past.
 You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed. You replied “under the bed.” It follows
that you were in fact killed the person.

On the other hand, let us suppose that the respondent answers “no” to the first question and “nowhere” to the
second. We then have the following arguments:

 You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered “no.” Therefore, you
continue to cheat.
 You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed. You answered “nowhere.”It follows that
you have destroyed the corpse.

Obviously, each of the questions is really two questions:

16
Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?

Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed? If you were killed it, where did you hide it?

3) False Dichotomy

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”)premise presents two unlikely
alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative,
leaving the desirable one as the conclusion. Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive premise is
false, or at least probably false, the argument is typically unsound. The fallacy is often committed by children
when arguing with their parents, by advertisers, and by adults generally. Here are three examples:

1. Classical democracy is originated either from the Gada System or from Athens. Classical democracy did
not originate from ancient Athens Thus; it must originate from the Gada System.
2. Either you are going to buy me a new car or I will divorce you. You do not want me divorce you. Thus,
you have to buy me a new car.
In none of these arguments does the disjunctive premise present the only alternatives available, but in each case,
the arguer tries to convey that impression. For example, in the first argument, the arguer tries to convey the
impression that democracy did not originate in other places than Athens or the Gada System and that no other
alternatives are possible. Clearly, however, this is not the case.

4) Suppressed Evidence

The requirement of true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of
evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument
does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Consider the
following argument:

1. Somalia is a good place for investment for the following reasons. First there are cheap raw materials.
Second there is cheap labor. Third there is good market for our product. Forth there is a port that helps
us to export our product. Thus we have to consider investing in Somalia.

If the arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in Somalia then the argument commits a
suppressed evidence fallacy. This fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the
presumption that the premises are both true and complete when in fact they are not.

5.2.1.1.4. Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy

A) Fallacies of Ambiguity

These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or
both). An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different interpretations in a given context. When the
17
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, the argument commits a fallacy of ambiguity.

1) Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase
is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such arguments are either invalid or
have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound. Examples:

1. Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
2. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law
of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
3. We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defense of the innocent. Therefore,
we have a duty to speak out in defense of the innocent.

In the first argument, “obtuse” is used in two different senses. In the first premise it describes a certain kind of
angle, while in the second it means dull or stupid. The second argument equivocates on the word “law.” In the first
premise it means statutory law, and in the second it means law of nature. The third argument uses “right” in two
senses. In the first premise “right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a just claim or power.

2) Amphiboly

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The original statement is usually asserted by someone other than the
arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation - a missing comma, a dangling
modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words. Because of this
ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly distinguishable ways. The arguer typically selects the
unintended interpretation and proceeds to draw a conclusion based upon it. Here are some examples:

1. The tour guide said that standing in Mesqel Square, the new federal police building could easily be
seen. It follows that the Empire State Building is in Greenwich Village.
2. Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that Habtom has at least the courage to
admit his own mistakes.

The premise of the first argument contains a dangling modifier. Is it the observer or the building that is supposed to
be standing in Greenwich Village? The factually correct interpretation is the former. In the second argument the
pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to Habtom or Megressa. Perhaps Habtom told
Megressa that Megreesa had made a mistake. Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical ambiguities.

18
 B) Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

The fallacies of grammatical analogy are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every
respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good yet be bad.

1) Composition

The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it
is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too and the
situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole. Examples:

1. Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole
is excellent. Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
2. Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons. Therefore,
salt is a deadly poison.

In these arguments, the attributes that are transferred from the parts onto the whole are
designated by the words “excellent,” “invisible” and “deadly poison,” respectively. In each case the transference is
illegitimate, and so the argument is fallacious. Not every such transference is illegitimate, however. Consider the
following arguments:

1. Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.
2. Every component in this picket fence is white. Therefore, the whole fence is white..

In each case, an attribute (having mass, being white) is transferred from the parts onto the whole, but these
transferences are quite legitimate. Indeed, the fact that the atoms have mass is the very reason why the chalk has
mass. The same reasoning extends to the fence. Thus, the acceptability of these arguments is attributable, at least in
part, to the legitimate transference of an attribute from parts onto the whole.

3) Division

The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes
from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members). Examples:

1. Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are non-
poisonous.
2. The Royal Society is over 300 years old. General Merid Hussein is a member of the Royal Society.
Therefore, General Merid Hussein is over 300 years old.

19
In each case the attribute, designated respectively by the terms “non-poisonous,” and “over 300 years old,” is
illegitimately transferred from the whole or class onto the parts or members. As with the fallacy of composition,
however, this kind of transference is not always illegitimate. The following argument contains no fallacy:

1. This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have mass.

20