FALLACY

FALLACY OF RELEVANCE

It’s an argument in which the premise is logically irrelevant to establish the conclusion. Yet, the
premises may appear to be psychologically relevant; i.e., the connection between the premise and
the conclusion is emotional, not logical.
Yet the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow
from the premises, even though it does not follow logically. These arguments often rely on
distractions, emotional appeals, or misdirection instead of valid reasoning.

1. Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum : Appeal to the “Stick”)
The word “ad” refers to Latin preposition meaning "to" or "toward." In the context of the term "ad
baculum," it suggests targeting or appealing to a stick or force.
The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person
and tells that person either implicitly (psychological) or explicitly (physical) that some harm will
come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.
It tries to persuade others by using threat of force (physical or psychological intimidation) in the
premise. Such threat cannot provide genuine evidence for the conclusion to be true. Hence, the
threat is irrelevant to the conclusion

 Employee to Boss: "I think I deserve a raise. If I don't get one, I might have to consider
working for a competitor who values my skills more."
 Surely you welcome the opportunity to join our protective organization. Think of all the
money you will lose from broken windows, overturned trucks, and damaged merchandise
in the event of your not joining.

2. Appeal to Pity
(Argumentum ad Misericordiam )

This fallacy relies on eliciting sympathy or pity to convince someone of a conclusion. The
argument appeals to emotions rather than facts or logic.
It support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in one ‘s audience. If the arguer succeeds in evoking
strong feelings of pity, the listeners may deceived to accept the conclusion without logical
evidence.

 The position open in the accounting department should be given to Frank Thompson.
Frank has six hungry children to feed, and his wife desperately needs an operation to
save her eyesight. “

Some arguments that attempt to evoke sympathetic feelings from the reader or listener are not
fallacious. We might call them arguments from compassion.

Such arguments differ from the fallacious appeal to pity in that, in addition to evoking
compassion on behalf of some person, they supply information about why that person is
genuinely deserving of help or special consideration.

3. Appeal to People
(Argumentum ad Populum )
Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by
others. The appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a
conclusion.

Committed when an arguer draw a conclusion by manipulating the desire of the people using
different techniques. Arguers illogically attempt to exploit the desire/emotion of the people for
some private motives.

Direct approach - 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. majorly applied in political propaganda.

 example; “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Republican Party will emerge victorious! We
are the true party of the American people! We embody the values that all real
Americans hold sacred.”

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. This is especially used in the advertising industry.

The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to
vanity, and the appeal to snobbery.

i. Appeal to Bandwagon
 It tries to persuade the person because others are doing/accepting it. And, it usually uses the
words “majority”, “most people”, “many”, “everybody” …etc.

“Practically everyone has driven home at one time or other after having had a few
drinks. Therefore, you shouldn't have any problem with driving home now, even though
you're a bit tipsy.”

ii. Appeal to Vanity

It’s committed through a celebrity persons (such as famous Athletes and Artists), especially
during advertisements. Associates the product with someone who is admired or known.

Claim: if you use the product which is used by someone respected by the
people ,you will be respected too.

Example; BBC may show the famous footballer, Cristiano Ronaldo,

wearing Nike shoe, and says, “Wear this new fashion sport shoe! A shoe, which is worn
only by few respected celebrities! NIKE SHOE!!”

iii. Appeal to Snobbery

The term Snobbery refers to a person with high social position, such as Royal Families, high
governmental statespersons, and wealthy persons. This argument tries to persuade that you are
one of the selected few, so buy a product which is consumed by the distinguished few.

examples; “Smart people read the times. If u want to be among the intellectuals,
go on and click the subscribe button.”

Father to son, “don’ u want to be a successful doctor like your uncle? Then u
have to study hard.”

The above three types of fallacies (appeal to force, pity and people) are collectively called
“Emotional Appeal of Relevance.” Because by arousing the emotion of the audience, the arguer
tries to have emotional approval of the claim of the conclusion.

4. Appeal Against the Person

(Argumentum ad Hominem)
The word, “hominem” = human/person
This argument always involves two persons (arguers) – P1 and P2, and P2 refutes P1. Here what’s
refuted, however, is not the argument, but the person himself who provides the argument. Hence,
the rebuttal (the rejection of the argument) becomes personalized.
This rebuttal occurs in three forms – Abusive, Circumstantial and Tu quoque.

i. Ad Hominem- Abusive

Committed when an arguer rejects an argument by verbally abusing the personality of his
opponent rather than the contents of his opponent’s argument

Second person rejects the first person ‘s argument by verbally abusing the first person.

✓ Premise: A is a person of bad character ✓Conclusion: A‟s argument should not be accepted.

Examples; “You can't trust her opinion on climate change; she's just a college dropout."

“Why should we listen to him about health care? He's overweight and doesn't even
exercise!"

ii. Ad Hominem- Circumstantial

This fallacy is not directed on attacking the personality of the opponent person, but on the
opponent’s circumstance (environment). Easy to recognize because it always take this form:
‘Of course, Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.’

Examples; “You can’t take his argument on education seriously; he’s a teacher and
obviously biased."

“Mr. John`s arguments against the rent control initiative on the September ballot should be taken with a
grain of salt. As a landlord he would naturally be expected to oppose the initiative.”

iii. Tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy

The second arguer discredits the argument of an opponent by claiming that the idea he
advance as false and contrary with what he has said or done before.

Examples; “Dr. Haile has argued that smoking is responsible for the majority of health
problems in this country and that every smoker who has even the slightest concern for his
 or her health should quit. Unfortunately, however, we must consign Dr. Haile`s argument
to the trash bin. Only yesterday I saw none other than Dr. Morrison himself smoking a
cigar.”

“My teacher told me that cheating on exam is a bad habit. But, he himself told me that he
used to cheat on exam when he was in university. Thus, his argument is foolish.”

The arguments are fallacious, because Cheating or Smoking is wrong whether the advisor
himself did the actions or not. i.e., the truth of the advice doesn’t depend on the action of the
advisor.

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.

The accident fallacy involves taking a broad rule or principle

and incorrectly applying it to a situation where it does not
appropriately fit.

• For example, “Whoever thrusts a knife into another

person should be arrested.” But surgeons do
precisely this when operating. Therefore, surgeons
should be arrested. So this might be concluded
accidentally not knowing surgeons can do this

It can be from legal contexts, everyday situations (example- misapplying the rule, “exercise is
good for health”),

Example- General Rule: "Everyone has the right to a fair trial."

Incorrect Application: "Since everyone has the right to a fair trial, a person accused of a
crime should be allowed to directly influence the jury." (Ignoring the legal protocols that
govern jury selection and impartiality.)

6. Straw man

The straw man fallacy is a common form of argumentation that misrepresents an opponent's
position to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of engaging with the actual argument,
the person creates a distorted or exaggerated version of it, which is often easier to argue against.
 example; Original Argument (real man): "I think we should have a discussion about the
benefits of a plant-based diet."

Straw Man: "You just want everyone to stop eating meat entirely and follow your diet!"

The straw man distorts the new argument and makes the original argument irrelevant to his conclusion while
making the distorted argument more relevant.

Characteristics

1. Misrepresentation: The original argument is altered or exaggerated, creating a "straw

man."
2. Easier to Attack: The distorted argument is often weaker, making it simpler for the
proponent to dismantle.
3. Avoidance of Real Issues: This tactic sidesteps the actual debate by focusing on a
mischaracterization.

“Frank Larsen argues for stricter gun control. It appears that Frank wants to abolish
access to guns altogether. But if law-abiding citizens can't own a gun, then they will have
no means of defending themselves against criminals.”

Original Argument: "We should have stricter regulations on industrial pollution to

protect the environment."

Straw Man Response: "My opponent wants to shut down all factories, which would put
thousands out of work."

7. Missing the Point

(Ignoratio Elenchi)

Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance. The is fallacy 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.
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.

Example- "Studies show that students perform better with smaller class sizes. Thus,
the school should eliminate all extracurricular activities."
The conclusion distracts from the original point regarding class size and does not
address it comprehensively.

“We are quickly diminishing the supplies of fossil fuels in the earth. Therefore we
should give up on cars and electricity and go back to the ways of the Amish.”

This fallacy can undermine the credibility of the person making the argument, as it shows a lack
of focus and understanding and when conclusions are drawn that do not logically follow, it can
mislead others into accepting flawed reasoning, which may perpetuate misconceptions.

8. Red Herring
This fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the audience by changing the
subject to some totally different issue. And, it has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. A new Topic B is introduced under the guise (cover) of being relevant to Topic A. but,
Topic B is actually irrelevant to Topic A.
3. Finally, the status of Topic A is ignored or abandoned.

The red herring fallacy involves introducing irrelevant information or distractions into an
argument to divert attention away from the main issue. This tactic is often used to mislead or
confuse the audience, preventing them from engaging with the actual argument.

Arguer ignores the main topic and shifts the attention of his audiences to another totally different
issue then draws conclusion from the changed issue

Example; Statement: "I think we should communicate more openly about our feelings."
Red Herring: "Well, you never remember to clean all that mess!"
 Instead of engaging with the need for communication, the response deflects to a separate,
unrelated issue.

Argument: "We need to address climate change urgently."

Red Herring Response: "But what about the homeless people in our city?
Shouldn't we focus on them instead?"
Here, the response distracts from the climate change discussion by bringing up a
different, albeit important, issue.

“Opponents of capital punishment have argued that the death penalty is

unfair and discriminatory. But it’s ridiculous to suggest that cold-blooded
murderers should not have to pay for their crimes. How is that fair to the
victims or their families?”

Upon differentiating Straw man, Missing the point and red herring fallacies
 Straw Man: Misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack.
 Red Herring: Distracts from the main issue with irrelevant information.
 Missing Point: Ignores crucial aspects of an argument, leading to incomplete reasoning.

 Both red herring and straw man proceed by generating a new set of premises
- But Missing the point draws a conclusion from the original premises
 In both red herring and straw man, the conclusion is relevant to the premises
from which it’s drawn
- But in missing the point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises from which it’s
drawn