CHAPTER VI

RULES FOR ASSESSING ARGUMENTS AND FALLACIES

The way of proceeding:

Introduction
Objectives
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Our discussion on fallacies will revolve around the following subtopics:

(I) Rules for Assessing Arguments
(I) Fallacies
Needed whenever an argument is being assessed
Identify the main conclusion:
engage in the following activities:
Look for the main point of the passage, by asking:
“What is the author driving at?”
Look for the inference (or conclusion) indicators,
such as therefore, hence, so, consequently, and so on.
Pay attention to the context and background for clues as to what the argument is all about.
Use the principle of charity when interpreting an ambiguous conclusion,
or when supplying a missing conclusion.
If the conclusion is difficult to elicit it may be because we are not dealing with an
argument at all.
Remember that every argument presents a claim and a reason to support that claim.

(2) Identify the Premises

If the conclusion has been correctly identified the rest of the argument will include the
premises (the information or reasons)
provided to support the conclusion.
It may also include some irrelevant material, such as illustrations and examples.
It may also include alternative versions of what is really a single premise.
The question we ask is: “What information or reasons does the author provide to support
the conclusion?” it is important to pay attention to the context and the principle of charity

(3) Identify the Structure of the Argument

Once the conclusion and premises have been identified
The structure of the argument must be identified.
If the argument has a simple structure
79
We can pass straight onto the critical assessment.
In all other cases care should be taken to ensure that the structure of the argument has
been correctly identified.

(4) Check the acceptability of the premises.

We would like to express two warnings here:
If the argument is intended to be a counter factual argument
It is irrelevant to ask whether the premises are true, since the author is not claiming that
they are true.
We need to note that a false premise does not always deprive the conclusion of all
support. If an argument has two independent premises,
thefactthatoneofthemisfalsehasnobearingonwhethertheotherpremiseistrue.
Andiftheotherpremiseistruethentheconclusionmaystillhavesomesupport.

(5) Check the relevance of the premises

There are some common ways
In which premises can seem relevant when in fact they are not.
The premises must be considered in context, for a premise that is irrelevant when
considered by itself may have its relevance established by other premises in the argument.

(6) Check the adequacy of the premises

There is a common way sin which premises can fail to provide adequate support for the
conclusion. When assessing adequacy, it is important to which the argument claims are
provided by the premises.

(7) Look for counterarguments

(or attempt to show that our opponent’s conclusion is false Or problematic by
constructing a different argumental together
To support a conclusion that is inconsistent with the original conclusion.)
Are there any reasons we can think of that would support a conclusion
That is inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument being assessed?
This goes beyond the assessment of a given argument, but if there is a sound
counterargument
We know that the given argument must be deficient.
Otherwise, we would have two sound arguments within consistent conclusions, which is,
or should be impossible.

80
 FALLACIES

Introduction
We shall commence our discussion by differentiating between formal and informal
fallacies. These fallacies are very important because we frequently encounter them in our
everyday communication. Therefore, we need to understand their nature if we have to
detect and avoid them.

Formal and Informal Fallacies

You have already learnt the meaning of fallacy when looking at the two kinds of mistakes
that can be committed in an argument. When the relationship between the premises and
the conclusion of an argument is such that even if the premises were true the conclusion
is not necessarily true or is least likely to be true then the argument has committed a
fallacy.

A fallacy is therefore, a lack of coherence between the claim of the premises taken
together and the claim of the conclusion. You remember we said that the purpose of any
argument is to present a justified claim or assertion. And it is the premises that offer that
justification. In other words, an argument that commits a fallacy does not have its
conclusion justified by its premises.

A fallacious argument should be avoided mainly because it fails in its purpose, which is,
to present a justified claim –a conclusion. Therefore, the truth of the conclusion of a
fallacious argument is never justified or established.

There are two kinds of fallacies: - formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are
reasoning that deviate from the established correct forms of reasoning. Any reasoning
that does not conform to the established structure or form of correct reasoning definitely
commits a formal fallacy. Therefore, to detect a formal fallacy simply requires an
examination of any given argument against the many known correct forms.

However, an informal fallacy emanates from inconsistent meanings within an argument.

Therefore, to detect an informal fallacy requires an interpretation of an argument and
understanding the meaning propositions used in the argument. Where the meaning of the
premises collectively does not justify the conclusion then an informal fallacy is
committed. So an informally fallacious argument may have a perfect form so long as the
meaning of the premises, upon critical examination, does not support the claim of its
conclusion.

In everyday and ordinary talk, detecting and avoiding fallacies can sometimes prove very
difficult. This may be so partly because the people involved may have no training in logic
or because the arguments are consciously or unconsciously formulated in such a way that
81
it is not easy to follow the trail of reasoning. However, one thing to be taken care of,
towards avoiding these fallacies, especially in ordinary talk, is to try to understand the
nature of the fallacies. One major characteristic of most of the fallacies is that they are
frequently formulated in such a way that they are psychologically persuasive and easily
deceive as correct. But on closer examination, they turn out not to be so.

In this lecture, we would confine our discussion to some informal fallacies which are
commonly committed in ordinary talk or arguments.

It should also be noted that informal fallacies are too numerous to exhaust, besides, new
ones continue to be identified or formulated. Further to note here is that even some of the
selected forms are named differently by different authors.

However, we categorize the informal fallacies into three groups, viz. fallacies of
relevance, fallacies of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity.

6.3.1 Fallacies of Relevance

The fallacies which are normally categorized as fallacies of relevance may perhaps be
better referred to as fallacies of irrelevance since in them the premises are irrelevant to
the conclusions inferred. In such cases the given premises fail to justify or establish the
truth of the conclusions purportedly based on them. Therefore, in these fallacies of
irrelevance there is an assumption that the given premises are relevant to certain
conclusions when in fact that is not the case.

1. Argument from Ignorance – Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

This fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion is claimed to be true simply because its
contrary has not been proved. In other words, a conclusion of an argument is either
claimed to be true because the given premises have not proved it to be false, or it is
claimed to be false because the premises have not proved it to be true. This is a fallacy
because inability to prove a conclusion false is not a proof of its truth and vice versa. In
other words, ignorance of proof of a claim or an assertion is not a proof to the contrary.
Let us look at the following example:

From time immemorial, many philosophers especially logicians have been trying to
disapprove of God’s existence but to no avail. Therefore, it is obviously true that God
exists.
Or, on the contrary, look at the following argument:
The non-existence of God can no longer be doubted given that the theologians have been
trying for centuries to logically prove His existence but without any trace of success.
The failure of logicians to prove that God does not exist, in itself, is not a proof that God
exist. Perhaps God does not exist and the logicians are only ignorant of how to prove
that. The same analysis applies to the second argument. The fact that the theologians have
82
not met with success in their attempt to prove that God exist does not constitute a proof
that God does not exist. It is possible that God indeed exists but the theologians are still
ignorant of how to prove that.

The conclusions of the above arguments are not justified by their respective premises.
Therefore, the arguments are therefore fallacious.

2. Appeal to People – Argumentum ad Populum

This fallacy occurs whenever an argument plays upon people’s needs, by exciting their
emotions and enthusiasm in order to have it or its conclusion accepted. In this fallacy,
premises are used in such a way that manipulates the beliefs and emotions of a listener
or reader so that he/she accepts the irrelevant conclusion. Argument ad populum is a kind
of appeal to emotion fallacies.

In this fallacy one is lured towards a conclusion simply by alleging that either most
people or some distinguished people believe in the conclusion. So, a person is made to
accept the conclusion of an argument simply because of the desire to be like some other
people. The following is an implicit example of the fallacy of appeal to people.

Rolls Royce is not a car for everyone. If you qualify as one of the select few, you can
make an appointment to view this special car and have test drive at Cooper Motors
Company.
This advertisement plays on the listener’s/reader’s desire to be distinguished and entices
him/her to go and see and possibly buy Rolls Royce. The listener is made to appear to
belong to a higher social status. This kind of feeling often undermines the necessary
considerations before such products are bought or consumed.

Look again at the following example.

Given that most people in a given country, including the government, are corrupt, the
right thing for one to do in this country is to be as corrupt.
Surely, one need not be corrupt simply because most people are corrupt, including the
government which is supposed to check or prosecute corrupt deeds. The fact that most
people are corrupt in this country does not make corruption a right thing. The majority
of people may just be doing the wrong thing.

Always remember that any reasoning to the effect that “Everybody or most people do it,
so you should too do it” is an appeal to people fallacy.

3. Appeal to Force – Argumentum ad Baculum

Argument ad baculum is also a kind of appeal to emotion fallacy. This fallacy seems to
be based on the belief that “might makes right”, sometimes this fallacy is called appeal
to stick. It occurs when threat either physical or psychological is used against somebody
83
in order to force or coerce one into agreeing to one’s conclusion, suggestion or view. The
threat can be either direct or veiled.

In this fallacy one makes it clear to a real or possible opponent that if he/she does not
agree to his/her position then certain harm or undesirable consequence will be meted out
to him/her. Look at the following example:
Remember, I am the bread earner in this house. So, if you do not want to do as I say then
you will have to look for your own source of livelihood.
In this example the person being addressed may have to obey simply for fear of losing
the source of livelihood and not because one is rationally convinced with whatever
instructions given by the bread earner. However, to force one to accept a particular
position does not prove the truth of that position. The acceptance is coerced and not
rationally justified by the premises.

4. Appeal to Pity – Argumentum ad Misericordiam

Argument ad misericordiam is another kind of fallacies of appeal to emotions. This
fallacy is committed when one evokes pity or emotion from listeners, reader or audience
by appealing to his/her pitiable or miserable condition in order for the listener, reader or
audience to accept his/her claim, conclusion or view. In this fallacy one appeals to mercy
and altruism from the audience, listener or reader to have his or her conclusion accepted.
Look at the following argument.
Student to lecturer: Sir, do not fail me. You know I am a refugee in this country and I am
putting up with a Christian community who are paying for my education and taking care
of me. If I fail they will not keep me in the community. However, I have nowhere to go;
I cannot go back to my country since I do not know where any of my relatives live or
even if they are alive.
Though the student’s condition evokes pity and mercy, that in itself has nothing to do
with whether the student deserves to fail or pass. But the student uses that condition as a
proof that he deserves to pass his exams. In any case, lecturers are not supposed to either
pass or fail students, but only to award whatever is deserved by students.

5. Appeal to Authority – Argumentum ad Verecundiam

However, argument ad verecundiam is committed when appeal is made to an illegitimate
or inappropriate authority in order to have a conclusion or view accepted. An authority
may be inappropriate due to various reasons such as lack of relevant expertise, bias or
prejudice, a motive to lie, or lack of adequate knowledge and therefore ability to
accurately perceive certain situations.

Some logicians feel that the appropriate name for this fallacy should not be “Appeal to
Authority” but “Appeal to Inappropriate Authority”. Some simply refer to it as fallacy of
appeal to misplaced authority. I am aware that there it is not always easy to know whether
an opinion of an expert in a given area is incorrect or whether an opinion of a non-expert
84
in the same area is correct. Therefore, it is necessary to scrutiny opinions of both experts
and non-experts in any given area. But on a balance, we tend to easily go with the opinion
of experts in their areas. Yet, that in itself is not a guarantee that their opinions are correct.

I once listened to an elderly Kenyan of reasonable education; reasonably elderly and

educated by Kenyan standards then, argues as follows.

I do not eat fish because when we were in school our teachers made us believe that it is
the Luo who eat fish.

If this argument is looked at from the Kenyan context it should be clear that the teachers
in question lacked adequate or appropriate knowledge to give an accurate opinion, or
misinformed the students out of malice. Therefore, to use the authority of such teachers
to justify why a non-Luo should not eat fish is to appeal to inappropriate authority hence
commits the fallacy of appeal to authority.

6. Argument against the Person – Argumentum ad Hominem

This fallacy occurs when instead of addressing oneself to a presented argument; one
addresses oneself to the person who presents the argument by disparages the character of
the person or, claiming that a person has vested interest and is predisposed to argues the
way one argues or that the person argues from bad faith –a hypocrite. This is why this
fallacy is called argument against the person.
By arguing against the person who presents an argument, the respondent believes or
creates an impression that the arguer’s argument has been disproved. It is the person who
attacks the character of an arguer who commits the fallacy.
But attacking the character of the person who presents an argument is not an attack on
the argument and therefore leaves the argument still intact. In order to disprove an
argument, one should present either premises that point to a contrary conclusion to the
one of the arguments, or give the correct conclusion inferable from the premises of the
argument. Therefore, attacking the character of a person is irrelevant to whether or not
one’s argument is tenable.

Argument ad hominem has three forms.

a) Argument ad hominem abusive. In this form of ad hominem, one disparages the

character and raises questions on the integrity of the arguer in order to deny the
reasonableness or soundness of his argument. Instead of presenting evidence that would
invalidate the argument, one abuses the arguer. The abuse may take various forms, based
on certain perceived undesirable traits, habits, beliefs or persuasions such as being a
divorcee, unmarried, drug-taker or addict, alcoholic, prostitute (sex worker),
homosexual, being of a certain colour, atheist, agnostic, communist, and others.

85
However, the position of logic is that the personal character of an individual has nothing
to do with the truth or falsity of what a person asserts; the correctness or incorrectness of
a person’s argument. The tenability of an argument is determined by the power of reason
alone. Therefore, it would be fallacious to dismiss or reject a person’s argument on the
basis of the individual’s personal character or traits.

A president of Kenya once argued as follows.

Some women have been arguing that building a sixty-storey building on Uhuru Park
would have adverse environment impact on the park. But look at who these women are!
They are just a bunch of divorcees.

The president intended to dismiss the argument presented by a group led by a famous
Kenyan environmentalist which was against the putting up of such a building in the park.
But the only justification the president gave in his attempt to dismiss the argument is to
socially disparage the women in the group.

But whether the group was comprised of women divorcees or was led by a woman
divorcee was irrelevant to the tenability of the argument of the group.

b) Argument ad hominem circumstantial. In this kind of ad hominem fallacy, an

arguer’s special circumstances are used as a reason to reject the arguer’s argument. In
this fallacy, there is a claim that one’s judgment is influenced by one’s vested interest
rather than by logical consideration, reason or evidence.

By allusion to an arguer’s special circumstances, the opponent attempts to show that the
arguer, due to his/her situation is predisposed to argue in the manner he/she does, hence
his/her argument is biased and cannot be accepted. Consider the following arguments or
responses:
A university lecturer presents an argument favouring a pay rise for university lecturers
and someone gives responds as follows, “Sure! It is easy to see why you are in favour of
a rise!”
In the above example, it should be noted that the circumstance of the arguer – being one
of the university lecturers for whom pay rise is argued, is irrelevant to the plausibility of
the argument. The special circumstance of an arguer does not necessarily rule out the
possibility of one’s argument being tenable.

c) Argument ad hominem You Too – Tu Quoque. This kind of ad hominem fallacy is

committed when one presents an arguer as a hypocrite or as arguing in bad faith by
pointing out certain conducts or practices in the arguer’s life which contradicts or is
inconsistent with the arguer’s argument. In this fallacy, it is the sincerity of the arguer
which is put to question. And due to this, the opponent believes that the arguer’s
argument is unacceptable.
86
Let us consider a case of a medical doctor who suggests to a patient to stop smoking
cigarettes since it is harmful to human health, and to which the patient gives the following
response.
Doctor, your argument that I should stop smoking cigarettes is not good since you too
smoke cigarettes.
The thinking behind the response of the patient is that the doctor’s suggestion is given in
bad faith. The patient finds it hard to accept the doctor’s argument that cigarette smoking
is harmful to human health, simply on the basis that the doctor also smokes cigarettes.

But from a purely logical point of view there is no justification that the fact that the doctor
being a smoker of cigarettes logically rules out his/her argument that cigarette smoking
harmful to human health.

7. Fallacy of Accident
This fallacy is committed whenever a general rule or principle is applied to a situation to
which it is not applicable. This is a fallacy of unwarranted generalization. It is a case of
an illegitimate application of a general rule. This happens whenever a general rule is
either explicitly or implicitly stated in a premise(s) and then the general meaning is
transferred to the conclusion which relates to an exceptional case.

It is called a fallacy of accident because any exceptional case must be due to some
“accidental” attributes otherwise it would be just like the rest of the cases. Therefore, this
error comes about due to carelessness and failure to distinguish between cases to which
a general rule or principle applies and their exceptions. It is necessary that rules or
principles should not be misapplied or applied wrongly. The following example can
illustrate the point:
The Kenyan constitution provides for freedom of movements and association. Therefore
it is wrong to deny a Kenyan citizen entry into a Kenyan military barrack.
Though the Kenyan constitution guarantees freedom of movement and association,
military barrack is an exception to the rule. The very Kenya constitution recognizes the
sensitivity of such a place and allows for controlled entry. Therefore, it would be logically
implausible to apply the general provision of the constitution to a situation to which its
application is an exception.

Another example concerns the moral obligation to assist those who are in need. It would
not be morally and logically correct, for one to argue that by virtue of that obligation that
one should continue to assist the needy even if the needy is prodigal. A case of prodigality
is an exception to the application of the moral principle.

87
8. Fallacy of Converse Accident
This fallacy is sometimes called fallacy of hasty generalization. The fallacy of converse
accident together with the fallacy of accident, occur due careless application of rules or
principles in exceptional situations. Therefore, in a way, both the fallacies occur due to
hasty generalizations.

The fallacy of converse accident therefore is committed whenever there is an illegitimate

generalization of a special exceptional rule. This happens when an exceptional case is
taken as a rule or when a generalization is made from insufficient sample. For following
is a good example.
Two weeks ago a robber was shot dead by police after robbing a shopkeeper along River
Road and he was a Kikuyu. Today police arrested a suspected robber along Moi Avenue,
and the suspect is a Kikuyu. Surely, Kikuyus are nothing but robbers.
The conclusion of the above argument is definitely based on insufficient evidence.
Therefore, the premises cannot justify the conclusion. This is a clear case of hasty
generalization which implies that the two cases cannot warrant the conclusion. The cited
cases being insufficient constitute isolated cases to the conclusion hence they cannot
logically justify the conclusion.

Again, consider the following argument.

“My friend smoked his whole life and lived to be 90, so smoking is not harmful to your
health.”
The argument commits the fallacy of converse accident by taking a special exceptional
case as a general rule.

9. The Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when one diverts the attention from the subject of an argument to a
different subject then goes on to draw a conclusion based on the newly introduced
subject. The person who changed the argument therefore creates a false impression that
the initial argument has been disproved. But by changing the subject of the opponent’s
argument, the arguer misleads or leads the listener or reader off track the argument. In
essence, the arguer has ignored the opponents’ argument by cleverly changing the subject
and hence in actual fact introduces new premises and argument.

For example, look at the following argument.

There has been a great deal of talk in this country about the need to control and streamline
the operations of matatu industry. But matatu industry plays a very important role in the
economy of this country. Apart from offering commuter transport where otherwise there
would be none, it also creates employment for so many youth who would be otherwise
unemployed. So the argument is not good.

88
It is clear; nobody has doubted that matatu industry plays an important role in the
economy of this country. So that is not a point of debate. The issue is to control and
streamline it so that it can offer safe, orderly and efficient commuter transport. But the
arguer is not addressing this issue, and instead has cleverly changed the topic of the
argument to the contribution of the industry to the economy. Though the arguer has not
addressed the issue of the argument, he/she remains under the belief or purports to have
logically responded to the issue; hence under the belief that the initial argument has been
disproved.

10. The Straw Man Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the sole
purpose of easily attacking or destroying it. And by destroying the distorted arguments,
the arguer concludes or is under the belief that the opponent’s argument has been
destroyed or disproved.

Yet the arguer has only set up a straw man, knocked it down, but then assumes that the
real man of whose straw he made (the opponent’s argument) has been knocked down or
destroyed. But the distorted and destroyed argument is not the same as the opponent’s
(original) argument.

The following argument is an example.

The student body has argued that, for their social growth, the school administration set
aside some weekend day as a leisure day for music and dance during which they may
invite or go out to visit their counterparts from opposite sex schools. But what do the
students want? Do they want to be dancing the rest of their school days? Do they want
the administration to turn the school into a place for dating and hooking? The students
request is ridiculous!

Obviously, the student’s request has been distorted in order to look ridiculous and
unacceptable. The students just requested for some day of the weekends when they can
play music and dance, or even interact with other students of the opposite sex from other
schools. That does neither imply that they want to dance the rest of their school days nor
turning school into a dating and hooking. No doubt if these were to be the implications
of the students’ request then turning down their request would be justified. But distorting
the students’ argument and then rejecting the distorted argument is not logically
disproving the students’ request. And to assume that the students’ request has been
logically disproved is a fallacy.

11. The Fallacy of Slippery Slope

This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer presents a conclusion based on an unlikely chain
reaction. In this fallacy there is an alleged chain reaction and with no sufficient reason to
think that the chain reaction will actually or most likely take place.
89
It should be noted that in this fallacy one argues in such a way that appears certain that
the chain reaction will take place, and the conclusion of such chain reactions always point
to a very serious and undesirable consequence.

The fallacy presents a situation as being on a ‘slippery slope’ such that any wrong step
or mistake inevitably triggers the ‘situation’ rolling down the slippery slope – any
mistake inevitably results into the undesirable effect.

However, it can be rather difficult to know whether this fallacy is committed or not in
situations where it is very uncertain that the chain reaction will most likely occur. But it
is normally the case in most instances of this fallacy that the reasons for it rest merely on
emotional convictions. The following argument is a good example.

We should outlaw the use of contraceptives in our society. The continued availability and
use of contraceptives will certainly lead to an increase in sexual immorality such as extra-
marital sex. This will undermine the institution of marriage and family and in turn
gradually erode the moral fabric of society and result in an increase in crimes of all sorts.
Eventually there will be a complete disintegration of law and order, leading in the end to
the total collapse of civilization and society.

The arguer claims that the use of contraceptives will certainly lead to an increase in extra-
marital sex which is doubtful. The arguer also claims that extra-marital sex will
undermine the institution of marriage and family which is also not necessarily true.
Therefore, the claim that the use of contraceptives will finally lead to the erosion of the
whole foundation of morality in society and cause the general breakdown of law and
order; consequently, leading to the breakdown of order and collapse of society is
unlikely. Therefore, it can be seen that the conclusion that the society will totally collapse
if the use of contraceptives is not immediately outlawed is based on an unlikely, or very
least likely, chain reaction. It is therefore fallacious.

6.3.2 Fallacies of Presumption

In the fallacies of presumption, the arguments presume the very conclusions they are
supposed to prove by using the very conclusion as a premise or conceal some premises
whose truth are questionable.

(a) The Fallacy of Begging the Question – Petitio Principii

Petitio principii literally means “postulation of the beginning”. This means using the
conclusion as a premise. But the conclusion is supposed to be justified by an independent
premise. To use a conclusion as a premise is to use the conclusion to justify itself is a
circular reasoning. And this kind of reasoning still leaves the question of justification of
the conclusion unanswered –begging.
90
The fallacy of begging the question occurs whenever the premises of an argument assume
the truth of the conclusion they are meant to prove. This means that in a way, the very
conclusion to be proved is also used as a premise.

The fallacy sometimes involves the use of some forms of expression which tend to
conceal the true nature of some premises whose truth is questionable or character has not
been established. In such a case, the premise may even turn out to be false. Yet as used
in the argument, one tends to be deceived that the very premise is true. The following
argument commits the fallacy of Begging the Question.

Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder, kidnapping and robbery with
violence because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone who commits such
heinous and inhuman acts be put to death.
The issue in the argument is to give reasons for capital punishment. To do that requires
reasons that would justify it. And the argument purports to have done that, yet on
analysis, it has not done so and instead it has only moved in a circle by using a phrase
‘capital punishment is justified’, which it is to be proved as a premise. This phrase is
fundamentally the same as the phrases, “it is quite legitimate and appropriate...someone
be put to death”.

If one analyses the argument then it can be rewritten thus: Capital punishment is justified
for crimes of murder, kidnapping and robbery with violence because it is justified that
capital punishment be meted out to anyone who commits such heinous and in human
acts. Put this way, it can be clearly seen that the argument has used its conclusion as its
premise as well, hence circular.

The following argument conceals its premise whose truth is questionable in order to
deceive that its conclusion is rationally derived from its premises. It should be noted here
that in good reasoning, a premise whose truth is questionable or disputable should not be
used to support a conclusion. If that happens, then the truth of that conclusion becomes
questionable too.

Abortion is morally wrong because murder is morally wrong.

This argument assumes that abortion is a form of murder. But we know that this
assumption or claim that abortion is murder is a highly morally contentious claim. Yet
the argument uses this concealed premise as if its truth is given to support a conclusion
that abortion is morally wrong. Therefore, put in full, the argument should read: Abortion
is morally wrong because abortion is murder and murder is morally wrong.

Since the truth of that premise is not yet settled, the argument still begs the question –
the question of justifying the claim that abortion is morally wrong.
91
(b) The Fallacy of False Dichotomy
This fallacy is sometimes called the fallacy of false dilemma or fallacy of false
bifurcation. The error of this fallacy emanates from its mistaken disjunction: that is, the
‘either … or …’ formulation of one of its premises.
The fallacy therefore occurs when an arguer uses premises one of which presents only
two alternatives where there are in fact more than the two alternatives; and the other
premise asserts the unacceptability of one of the two alternatives, hence rules it out. The
conclusion of the argument then as a matter of logical consequence asserts the other
alternative. The error in this argument is to assume that there are only two alternatives,
where that are more than two alternatives. Thus, if the ignored alternative were to be
considered, then the asserted conclusion would not logically follow.

It is because of the mistaken, ‘either…or…’ premise that creates a false dichotomy, hence
the name of the fallacy. And it is called false dilemma because one would be falsely
forced to accept either of the alternatives when in fact, in considering the third possibility,
one could as well reject both of the presented positions.

For example, sometime back the US President George Bush in his campaign to garner
world support for the American intended military attack on Afghanistan in an attempt to
force it to handover Osama bin Laden, America’s prime suspect in the September 11,
2001 American planes hijack and subsequently crashing them on the twin Towers of the
World Trade Centre, in which hundreds of people died, argued:
You are either with us or with the terrorists. And our war against international terrorism
will extend to all those who support and harbour them.

I can remember many countries world over apparently were forced to come out openly
and forcefully state that they are against terrorism and support American attack on
Afghanistan. But the President of Iran countered the Bush’s argument, that his country
neither supports terrorism nor America’s attack on Afghanistan. And this exactly is the
point I want to bring out, that Bush, apparently, did not think anybody could be neutral
over the matter, but which was a logically possibility. Bush made a mistake to assume
that the world opinion could only be divided into two –supporting either American
intended attack on Afghanistan or terrorists. Those who were presumed to support
terrorists were equally at risk of American attack.

Let us look at the following argument which also commits the fallacy.
Either you marry me or I will be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don’t want
me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that you will marry me.

We know that in life, one’s happiness does not depend exclusively on marrying a
particular individual. There are many other people who are either equally or even more
suitable marriage partners who would still make one’s life happy if one thinks that
92
marriage partner as the sole determinant of one’s happiness. Therefore, failure to marry
a particular individual does not imply that one cannot get other replacements and that one
would end up being miserable for the rest of one’s life. Furthermore, one can still be very
happy without getting married at all. Therefore, presenting only two alternatives is
misleading, and consequently asserting one of the alternatives after eliminating the other
is logically untenable.

(c) The Fallacy of Complex Question

This fallacy involves asking multiple questions as a single question. The question is asked
in such a way that it presupposes the truth of the conclusion but which has not been
established. Therefore, by answering the complex question as if it is a single question,
one accepts also the presupposed truth of some conclusion which if put otherwise, one
would not accept.

Whoever answers such a complex question as a single question commits a fallacy by

accepting the presupposed truth of the conclusion which has not been established. It is
logically untenable to accept an assertion without a justification. For example, the
following question can easily lead to the commission of the fallacy.

Question: Have you stopped cheating on your husband?

This question presupposes the truth that the one to whom the question is directed has
been cheating on her husband. So whatever yes or no answer one gives, this presupposed
truth would be accepted. That is the reason why such a complex question should not be
answered as if it were a single question which requires a single answer. Supposing one
answered in the affirmative. That would mean that one has been cheating on one’s
husband but has stopped. But if it is answered in the negative, it would still all the same
mean that one has been cheating on one’s husband but has not stopped.

The fallacy of the complex question would be avoided by not answering the question as
a single question, but by first identifying the presupposed conclusion and responding to
the conclusion appropriately, especially if one does not agree with it. For example in the
above question, one should simply deny that one has been cheating on one’s husband.
And once that is done, the complex question would have been answered effectively.

6.3.3 Fallacies of Ambiguity

The arguments in this category use either ambiguous terms or phrases which then render
them defective and hence fallacious. An ambiguity of a word or term is referred to as
equivocation while an ambiguity of a phrase or a proposition is referred to as amphiboly.
When arguments use ambiguous words or phrases whose meanings shift and change in
their premises, then the conclusions of such arguments cannot be logically correct.

93
(a) Fallacy of Equivocation
Equivocation simply means using a term or word in more than one different sense. To
use an ambiguous term in such a way that its meaning shifts between the possible
meanings is to equivocate on the term. In such a case it is not clear which of the possible
meanings is intended. This can happen accidentally or deliberately.

Therefore, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when an arguer uses a term equivocally in
an argument. This happens when the term assumes a different meaning in the conclusion
from the one in the premise. Or it can happen when an ambiguous term used in a premise
but the conclusion is based on one of the possible meanings of the term.

Let us examine also the following argument.

God is love and love is blind. Therefore, God is blind.
In this argument, the term ‘love’ in the first premise is used to mean that God is kind,
caring and forgiving. In the second premise the term ‘love’ is used to mean inability to
detect the defect or shortcoming in the person one loves. But the conclusion therefore
assumes the meaning of love in the second premise. In the second premise, it is used to
mean an entitlement. Yet, in essence, given the two different meanings of the term love
in both premises means that there is no logical connection between the two premises of
the argument, and therefore the truth of the conclusion is not supported by the premises.

(b) Fallacy of Amphiboly

Amphiboly can simply be understood to mean an ambiguity of a phrase or expression.
This comes about due to improper grammatical construction which therefore makes its
meaning amphibolous proposition unclear. This means that an amphibolous proposition
may be true on one interpretation yet false on another.

The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when an amphibolous proposition is used as a

premise but the conclusion is based on one of the possible meanings. In most cases the
amphibolous proposition takes an interpretation in the premise which makes the premise
true but assumes an interpretation in the conclusion that renders the conclusion false.
This therefore means that in this fallacy, the conclusion is based on a different
interpretation of the ambiguous proposition from its interpretation in the premise. The
following argument commits this fallacy.

Next week the professor will give a lecture on power outage in the science lecture hall.
It must be the case that there has been frequent power outage in the hall.
The ambiguity occurs in the phrase, ‘on the power outage in the science lecture hall’. So
what takes place in the lecture hall is not clear; is it the lecture or the power outage? The
plausible interpretation is ‘the lecture’, and not ‘the power outage’. Yet the conclusion
interprets that what takes place in the lecture is the power outage. This in essence means
that there is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion.
94
But the confusion and hence the fallacy would have been avoided if punctuations were
inserted in the premise thus: Next week the professor will give a lecture, on power outage,
in the science lecture hall’.

(c) Fallacy of Composition

The fallacy of composition occurs when the attributes of the parts or members are
illegitimately transferred to the whole or collectivity. There are two forms of the fallacy
of composition. One is where the attributes of parts are wrongly or illegitimately
transferred to the whole. The following example commits the fallacy.
Sodium and chlorine, the constituent elements of table salt, sodium chloride, are each
highly poisonous. Therefore, table salt is highly poisonous.
It can be seen clearly that from this argument, the attributes of the parts cannot be
transferred to the whole. Though it is true that sodium and chlorine are separately highly
poisonous, that is not the case with the compound, sodium chloride.

(d) The Fallacy of Division

The fallacy of division is seen as the opposite of the fallacy of composition. It is
committed whenever one wrongly or illegitimately transfers what is true of the whole to
parts or members. Like the fallacy of composition, the fallacy of division has two forms.
For following argument is an example.
Given that America is a very rich country, it is obvious every American citizen is very
rich.
It is easy to see how the fallacy of division comes about. It should be clear that what is
true of the premise is not true of the conclusion. This logically means that the claim of
the premise does not imply the claim of the conclusion. It is indeed true that America as
a country is very rich but that does not imply that every American is also very rich.

95