Lecture

CHAPTER NINE

Obstacles to Critical Thinking

Committing a fallacy in our argument is yet another way of affecting our thinking. We
are treating this class of obstacles to our thinking separately because of its uniqueness. It
is not dependent mostly on our emotional behavior like the other obstacles that we have
seen in the previous chapter. It is rather based on a defect in our argumentation.

A fallacy is a certain kind of defect in argument. One way that an argument can be
defective is by having one or more false premises. Another way is by containing a
fallacy.

Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal. A formal fallacy is
one that may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an
argument. Fallacies of this kind are usually found only in deductive arguments that have
clearly recognisable forms, (e.g., categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms,
hypothetical syllogisms).
Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only through analysis of the content of
the argument or meaning of the words involved. Informal fallacies are frequently backed
by some motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the reader or listener. The arguer may
not have sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as a result may attempt to
win its acceptance by resorting to a trick. Some times the trick fools even the arguer. The
arguer may delude himself into thinking that he is presenting genuine evidence when in
fact he is not. By studying some of the typical ways in which arguers deceive both
themselves and others, one is less likely to be fooled by the fallacious arguments posed
by others and is less likely to stumble blindly into fallacies when constructing arguments
for one’s own use.
Informal Fallacies

Our purpose in this lecture is to examine more on the informal fallacies as one of the
means of analysing arguments. Logicians have always attempted to classify the various
informal fallacies into different ways.
Our presentation that follows divides twenty-two (22) fallacies into five groups.
 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of weak induction
 Fallacies of presumption
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Fallacies of Grammatical analogy.

a) Fallacies of Relevance

64
Lecture

The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic that the arguments in which
they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises
are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises,
even though it does not follow logically. In a good argument the premises provide
genuine evidence in support of the conclusion. In an argument that commits a fallacy of
relevance, on the other hand, the connection between premises and conclusion is
emotional. To identify a fallacy of relevance, one must be able to distinguish genuine
evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.

 Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to Force or to the stick

The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another
person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to
him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion. The fallacy always involves a
threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader,
who may be either a single person or a group of persons. Obviously, such a threat is
logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so any argument based on
such a procedure is fallacious. This fallacy often occurs when children are arguing with
one another. But it also occurs among adults.
Example: A child to a playmate: ‘Ridiculous’ is the best program on TV; and if
you don’t believe it, I’am going to call my big brother over here and
he’s going to beat you up.

Secretary to a boss: I’m sure you’ll want to raise my salary for the
coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and
I’m sure you wouldn’t want her to find out what’s been going on
between you and that sexpot client of yours.

 Argumentum ad Misericodiam: Appeal to pity

The fallacy of appeal to pity occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion and then
attempts to evoke pity from the reader or listener in an effort to get him or her to accept
the conclusion.
Example: A taxpayer tells a judge: Your Honour, I admit that I declared
thirteen children as dependants on my tax return, even though I
have only two, and I realise that this was wrong. But if you find me
guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I’ll probably
lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation
that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely you will
find me not guilty.
The appeal to pity is quite common and is frequently used by students on their instructors
at exam time and by lawyers on behalf of their clients before judges and juries.

65
Lecture

 Argumentum ad populum: Appeal to the people

The appeal to people uses certain desires (like being loved, esteemed, admired, valued,
recognised and being accepted by others) to get the reader or listeners to accept a
conclusion. Two approaches are involved, one of them direct, the other 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 conclusion. The
objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality. This is the strategy used by nearly every
propagandist.
The direct approach is not limited to oral argumentation: a similar effect can be
accomplished in writing. In this approach a polemist, for example, may use emotionally
charged phraseology as “defender of human rights”, “defender of the working man”, etc.
to awaken the same mob mentality as he would if he were speaking.
In the indirect approach, the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a whole
but to one or more individuals separately, focusing upon some aspect of their relationship
to the crowd. It is commonly used by advertisers even mothers encouraging their children
to perform something, E.g.,
Mother to child: You want to be like undertaker,
Don’t you?
Then you must eat your liver and chapati.

 Argumentun ad Hominem: Argument against the person

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
 ad hominem circumstantial and
 the tu quoque.

In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by
verbally abusing the first person.
Example: Poet Allen Ginsberg has argued in favour of abolishing censorship
of pornographic literature. But Ginsberg's arguments are nothing
but trash. Ginsberg, you know, is a marijuana-smoking
homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture.
The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but
instead of heapig verbal abusive on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to
discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain 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.

66
Lecture

Example: Economist Joe Odonde has argued in favour of reducing

government income taxes. But Odonde's argument should be
discounted. Odonde is a millionaire who would benefit greatly
from a reduction in taxes. Also, Odonde has no need for the
government social programs that higher taxes provide for.
The tu quoque (You too) fallacy begins the same way as the other two, 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 behaviour of
the first arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion. In effect, the second arguer says,
“How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X
yourself.”
Example: A parent admonishes his or her child for having stolen jam from
the store. The child responds: 'your argument is no good. You told
me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole jam when you were
a kid.'

The tu quoque is sometimes called the 'two wrongs make a right' fallacy. Obviously, two
wrongs do not make a right.

 The Fallacy of 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. Because of the accidental features of the specific case, the general rule does
not fit.
Example: Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, James Orengo should not be arrested for his speech
that incited the riot of Nairobi University students last week.

 The Straw Man

This 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 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.
Example: Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment have advanced a
number of arguments in favour of its passage. But the question is,
are identical roles for men and women really what we want? If
women are forced into combat roles in the armed forces, won't this
weaken our nation's defences? And if men and women are required
to share the same restroom facilities in public buildings, won't this

67
Lecture

encourage crimes related to sex? Most thoughtful Africans would

have to answer 'yes' to these questions. Thus, upon analysis, it
appears that the arguments supporting the ERA are not really so
good after all.
The kind of distortion the second arguer resorts to is often an attempt to exaggerate the
first person’s argument or make it look more extreme than it really is.

 Ignoratio Elenchi: Missing the point

This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion
but then a completely 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. This conclusion must be significantly different from the conclusion that is actually
drawn.
Examples: Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming
rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death
penalty immediately.
Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our only
alternative is to abolish the system altogether.
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.

 The Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is closely associated with missing the point (ignoratio elenchi). The red
herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener
by changing the subject to some totally different issue.
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. The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to
train hunting dogs to follow a scent. A red herring (or a bag of them) is dragged across
the trail with the aim of leading the animal 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.
Example: Environmental groups have argued that the construction of the
new Tiomin Mining Company in Kwale will have an adverse
impact on the scenic beauty of the surrounding region. But if we
followed the advice of every environmentalist, the economy would
come to a halt. Some of these people go into a state of shock over

68
Lecture

the idea that some obscure species of bird or animals whose very
existence might have been unknown only a few days earlier might
become extinct. Such concerns are ridiculous. The passage into
extinction and emergence of plant and animal species is an
evolutionary commonplace. A short time ago the scientific
community patted itself on the back over the eradication of
smallpox. Did the environmentalists complain then about the
threatened extinction of the smallpox virus?

Test Yourself:

Identify the fallacies of relevance committed by the following arguments. Some

arguments may be interpreted as committing more than one fallacy. If no fallacy is
committed, write “good argument”.

1. Whoever thrusts a knife into another person should be arrested. But surgeons
do precisely this when operating. Therefore, surgeons should be arrested.
2. There are more churches in Nairobi than in any other town in Kenya, and
more crimes are committed in Nairobi than anywhere else. So, if we are to
eliminate crime, we must abolish the churches.
3. Kanini’s dentist advised her to have extensive work done on her teeth. She
should not take this advice seriously, however, because if she has this work
done, the dentist will receive an excellent fee.
4. The position open in the canteen department should be given to Mr. Ojwang’.
He is married with two children attending nursery school and his wife was
recently blinded in one eye in a road accident.

Assignment:
Turn to the editorial pages of a newspaper and find an instance of a fallacious argument
in the editorials or letters to the editor. Identify the premises and conclusion of the
argument and write an analysis at least one paragraph in length stating why the
argument is fallacious and identifying the fallacy or fallacies committed.

Introduction

69
Lecture

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.
Like the fallacies of relevance, however, the fallacies of weak induction often involve
emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.

 Argumentum ad Verecundum (Appeal to Authority)

An argument from authority is an inductive argument in which an arguer cites the

authority or testimony of another person in support of some conclusion. The appeal to
authority fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited
authority or witness is not trustworthy.
Example: Jupiter's third satellite, Europa, very probably has life on it. Why,
none other than Joe Masiga, the great football player, has come
out in support of this idea.
Because it is highly unlikely that a great football player should be an expert in
astrobiology, we are justified in concluding that this argument is fallacious.
There are several reasons why an authority or witness might not be trustworthy. The
person might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might have a
motive to the lie or disseminate misinformation, or might lack the requisite ability to
perceive or recall.
It is good to keep in mind that while some disciplines admit of authority, there are other
disciplines or areas of argumentation where it happens that practically no one can be
considered an authority. Such areas include politics, morals and religion: e.g., the issue of
abortion.
 Argumentum ad ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs 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 issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that
has not yet been proved.
Example: People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of
astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that the claims of astrology are true.
The premises of an argument are supposed to provide positive evidence for the
conclusion.

 Fallacy of Hasty Generalisation (Converse Accidents)

70
Lecture

Hasty generalisation is a fallacy that affects inductive generalisations. An inductive

generalisation is an argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from
evidence that pertains to a selected sample.
The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not
representative of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or
not randomly selected.
Example: After only one year the alternator went off in Mr. Omondi's new
Toyota corolla. Mrs Kaunda's Subaru Legacy developed a
transmission problem after six months. The conclusion is obvious
that cars made by General Motors are just a pile of junk these
days.
Hasty generalisation is otherwise called 'converse accident' because it proceeds in a
direction opposite to that of accident. Whereas accident proceeds from the general to the
particular, converse accident moves from the particular to the general. The premises cite
some characteristic affecting one or more typical instances of a certain class, and the
conclusion then applies that characteristic to all members of the class.

 Fallacy of False Cause

The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an
argument is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should
be able to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas as
X probably does not cause Y at all.
Example: There are more laws on the books today than ever before, and
more crimes are being committed than ever before. Therefore, to
reduce crime we must eliminate the laws.
The false cause fallacy is often convincing because it is sometimes difficult to determine
whether two phenomena are causally related; and even when they are related, it is
sometimes difficult to tell which is the cause and which the effect.

 Fallacy of Slippery Slope

The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the
conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient
reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.
Example: Immediate steps should be taken to outlaw pornography once and
for all. The continued manufacture and sale of pornographic
material will almost certainly lead to an increase in sex-related
crimes such as rape and incest. This in turn will gradually erode
the moral fabric of society and result in an increase in crimes of
all sorts. Eventually a complete disintegration of law and order
will occur, leading in the end to the total collapse of civilisation.

71
Lecture

 Fallacy of Weak Analogy

This fallacy affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument from analogy is an
argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity,
between two things or situations. The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the
analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
Example: Some strains of cattle are more desirable than others, and the
more desirable strains may be produced by eugenic practices such
as selective breeding. Similarly, in man the more desirable strains
may be produced by eugenic practices such as selective breeding.

Or
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 murders and kidnappers are
cancerous growths in society. Therefore, when these criminals are
apprehended and convicted, they should be treated like any other
cancer and eliminated by capital punishment.
Test Yourself:

Identify the fallacies of presumption, committed by the following arguments. If no fallacy

is committed, write 'good argument.'

1. All men are mortal. Therefore, some day man will disappear from the earth.
2. Are you still drinking excessively?
3. Romano is the greatest artist of the twentieth century. We know this is so
because certain art critics have described him in these terms. These art critics
are correct in their assessment because they have a more keenly developed
sense of appreciation than the average critic. This is true because it takes a
more keenly developed sense of appreciation to realize that Romano is the
greatest artist of the twentieth century.
4. If Thomas gives Marie a ring, then Thomas and Marie will be engaged.
Thomas did give Marie a ring. In fact, he phoned her just the other night.
Therefore, Thomas and Marie are engaged.

Introduction

72
Lecture

The fallacies of presumption include begging the question, complex question, false
dichotomy, and suppressed evidence. 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 attempts to hide the fact that a certain premise may not be true, and
the fallacy of complex question attempts to trick the respondent into making some
statement that will establish the truth of the presumption hidden in the question. False
dichotomy presumes that an “either—or” statement presents mutually exhaustive
alternatives. While suppressed evidence presumes that no important piece of evidence has
been overlooked by the premises.

 Fallacy of Begging the Question (Petitio Principi)

Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to
conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. If the reader or listener is
deceived into thinking that the key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as
sound, when in fact it may not be. Two requirements must be met for this fallacy to
occur:
a. The argument must be valid
b. Some artifice must be used to hide the fact that a certain premise may not
be true.
The kind of artifice used varies from argument to argument, but it often involves using
the conclusion to support the questionable premise. The phrase used can take different
forms:
a) Phrasing the argument in such a way that the premise and conclusion say
the same thing in two slightly different ways
Example: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder
and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and
appropriate that someone be put to death for having
committed such hateful and inhuman acts.

b) Making a chain of arguments whereby the final conclusion is stated first.

Example: Ford Motors Company clearly produces the finest cars in

the United States. We know they produce the finest cars
because they have the best design engineers. The reason
why they have the best design engineers is because they can
afford to pay them more than other manufacturers.
Obviously, they can afford to pay them more because they
make the finest cars in the United States.
c) A third form of begging the question occurs when a questionably true
premise, which is needed to make the argument valid, is completely
ignored.

73
Lecture

Example: Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows

that abortion is morally wrong.

An essential characteristic of begging the question is that some artifice is used to hide the
fact that a key premise may not be true. If this premise is obviously true, no such artifice
is relevant, and the fallacy cannot occur.

 Fallacy of Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question is committed when a single question that is really two
(or more) questions is asked and a single answer is then applied to both questions. 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.
Example: Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Where did you hide the biscuits you stole?
If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is
put to them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is
supported by no evidence at all; or, they may be tricked into providing the evidence
themselves. The correct response lies in resolving the complex question into its
component questions and answering each separately.
The fallacy of complex question should be distinguished from another kind of question
known in law as a leading question. A leading question is one in which the answer is in
some way suggested in the question. Whether or not a question is a leading one is
important in the direct examination of a witness by counsel.
Example: Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot himself?
(Leading question)
Tell us, what did you see on April 9? (Straight question).

Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical fallacies;
that is, they do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting something he or she
does not want to admit. To distinguish the two, however, it is sometimes necessary to
know whether prior questions have been asked.

 Fallacy of False Dichotomy

74
Lecture

The fallacy of false dichotomy (otherwise called “false bifurcation” and the “either-or
fallacy”) is committed when one premise of an argument is an either---or” (disjunctive)
statement that presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (i.e., as if no
third alternative were possible). The arguer usually prefers one of these alternatives.
When the arguer then proceeds to eliminate the undesirable alternative, the desirable one
is left as the conclusion. Such an argument is clearly valid: but since the disjunctive
premise is usually false, the argument is almost always unsound.
Of course, not all-unsound arguments are fallacious. The fallacious nature of false
dichotomy lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into thinking
that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives and is therefore true
by necessity. The fallacy is commonly committed by children and adolescents when
arguing with their parents, by advertisers and by adults generally.
Example: Either you let me continue with my job or I'll 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'll let me continue with my job.
Or
Either you buy only Kenyan-made products or you don't deserve to
be called a loyal Kenyan. Yesterday you bought Japanese-made
products. It is therefore clear that you don't deserve be called a
loyal Kenyan.

 Suppressed Evidence

This fallacy occurs in an inductive argument. The fallacy is committed when the premises
ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. An arguer ignores evidence that would tend to
undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or
uncogent.
This fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the
presumption that the premises are true in a complete sense when in fact they are not. It is
closely related to the fallacy of begging the question. Its occurrence does not affect the
relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of the premises.
The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were the whole
truth, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is
especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which
the argument pertains.
Example: Used car salesman to buyer: Mrs Kabianga, I have just the car
you need. This 1999 Subaru was recently traded in by a little old
lady who kept it in the garage most of the time. The odometer
reads low mileage, and the engine was recently tuned up. If you
buy this car, it will give you trouble-free service for years.

75
Lecture

For the fallacy of suppressed evidence to occur, the evidence that is ignored must be the
kind that would undermine the premises. Many arguments ignore evidence that would
support an opposing conclusion, but because the evidence is not the sort that would
undermine the premises, the fallacy is not committed.
Example: Heroin addicts steal millions of dollars every year to support their
habits, and thousands of addicts die every year from overdose.
Methadone is a legal drug that relieves the craving for heroin, and
its strength and quality can be precisely controlled. If methadone
were supplied to heroin addicts, it would eliminate the constant
need to steal and reduce the number of deaths from overdose.
Therefore, methadone treatment centres should be set up for
heroin addicts.
To detect the fallacy of suppressed evidence, the reader or listener must be cautious that
the arguer is not ignoring evidence that has a bearing on the premises. This, in turn,
requires a general knowledge of the topic to which the argument pertains and a
familiarity with the devices used by unscrupulous individuals to pass off half-truths as the
whole truth.
Test Yourself:

Identify the fallacies of relevance, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy

committed by the following arguments. Some arguments may commit more than one
fallacy. If no fallacy is committed, write 'good argument.'

1. What goes up must come down. The price of gold has been going up for
months. Therefore, it will surely come down soon.
2. On Monday I drank ten reds and cokes, and the next morning I woke up with
a headache. On Wednesday I drank eight gin and cokes, and the next morning
I woke up with a headache. On Friday I drank nine tuskers and cokes, and the
next morning I woke up with a headache. Obviously, to prevent further
headaches I must give up coke.
3. Every member of the Obwangara Club is over 70 years old. Therefore, the
Obwangara Club is over 70 years old.
4. Kamau, I know you'll me your bicycle for the afternoon. After all, I'm sure
you wouldn't want your mother to find out that went out for disco last week.
5. Mr. Anunda said that on July 4 he went out on the veranda and watched the
fireworks go up in his pajamas. We conclude that Mr. Anunda must have had
an exciting evening.
6. Professor Nyakarinda, surely you can find it in your heart to give me a 'B' in
Critical Thinking. I know I deserve an 'F,' but if you give me that, I will lose
my scholarship. That will force me to drop out of college, and my poor, aged
parents, who yearn to see me graduate, will be grief-stricken for the rest of
their lives.

76
Lecture

Introduction
The fallacies of ambiguity include equivocation and amphiboly. These fallacies arise
from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the conclusion
(or both). The term ambiguity is distinguished from vagueness. A term is vague if its
meaning is blurred so that one cannot tell with any degree of precision whether it applies
to a given situation. A term is ambiguous, on the other hand if it is susceptible to different
interpretations in a given context.
Terms such as light, bank, and race lend themselves to ambiguous interpretations, while
love, conservative, and happiness are often vague.
Ambiguity can affect not only terms but also whole statements. When the conclusion of
an argument depends on a certain interpretation being given to an ambiguous term or
statement, the argument commits a fallacy of ambiguity.

 The Fallacy of Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
fact that one or more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different
senses in the argument.
Either, such arguments are invalid, or a premise is false and the argument is unsound.
Examples: Some triangles are obtuse.
Whatever is obtuse is ignorant.
Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
Or
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.
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
example equivocates on the word law. In the first premise it means statutory law, and in
the second it means law of nature.
For an argument that commits an equivocation to be convincing, it is essential that the
equivocal term be used in two ways that are subtly related.

 The Fallacy of Amphiboly

It occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing to some
structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.

77
Lecture

The original statement is usually asserted by someone other that the arguer, and the
structural defect is usually 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 defect, 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.
Example: The tour guide said that standing in Hilton hotel, the State House
building could easily be seen. It follows that the state house
building is in Hilton hotel.
John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John
has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
Professor Makambo said that he would give a lecture about heart
failure in the biology lecture hall. It must be the case that a
number of heart failures have occurred there recently.
The premise of the first argument contains a dangling modifier. Is it the observer or the
State House building that is supposed to be standing in Hilton hotel. The correct
interpretation is the former.
In the second argument the pronoun 'he' has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either
to John or to Henry. Perhaps John told Henry that Henry had made a mistake.
In the third argument the ambiguity concerns what takes place in the biology lecture hall;
is it the lecture or the heart failures? The correct interpretation is probably the former.
The ambiguity can be eliminated by inserting commas ('Professor Makambo said that he
would give a lecture, about heart failure, in the biology hall') or by moving the
ambiguous modifier ('Professor Makambo said that he would give a lecture in the biology
lecture hall about heart failure').
Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways. First, equivocation is
always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of one or more words, whereas amphiboly
involves a structural defect in a statement. The second difference is that amphiboly
usually involves a mistake made by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement
made by someone else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is typically the arguer’s
own creation. If these distinctions are kept in mind, it is usually easy to distinguish
amphiboly from equivocation.

b) The Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

These include composition and division. Arguments that commit these fallacies 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.
 The Fallacy of Composition
It 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,

78
Lecture

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: Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete.

Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.

Or

Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible.

Therefore, the chalk is invincible.

Or

Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both

deadly poisons.
Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.

 The Fallacy of Division

It 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).
Example: Salt is a non-poisonous compound.
Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are non-
poisonous.

Just as composition is sometimes prone to being confused with hasty generalization

(converse accident), division is sometimes prone to being confused with accident. As
with composition, this confusion can occur only when the 'whole' is a class. In such a
case division proceeds from the class to the members, while accident proceeds from the
general to the specific. Thus, if a class statement is mistaken for a general statement,
division may be mistaken for accident. To avoid such a mistake, one should analyze the
premises of the argument. If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy
committed is accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy is division.

Test Yourself:
Identify the fallacies of relevance, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy
committed by the following arguments. Some arguments may commit more than one
fallacy. If no fallacy is committed, write 'good argument.'

7. What goes up must come down. The price of gold has been going up for
months. Therefore, it will surely come down soon.

79
Lecture

8. On Monday I drank ten reds and cokes, and the next morning I woke up with
a headache. On Wednesday I drank eight gin and cokes, and the next morning
I woke up with a headache. On Friday I drank nine tuskers and cokes, and the
next morning I woke up with a headache. Obviously, to prevent further
headaches I must give up coke.
9. Every member of the Obwangara Club is over 70 years old. Therefore, the
Obwangara Club is over 70 years old.
10. Kamau, I know you'll me your bicycle for the afternoon. After all, I'm sure
you wouldn't want your mother to find out that went out for disco last week.
11. Mr. Anunda said that on July 4 he went out on the veranda and watched the
fireworks go up in his pajamas. We conclude that Mr. Anunda must have had
an exciting evening.
12. Professor Nyakarinda, surely you can find it in your heart to give me a 'B' in
Critical Thinking. I know I deserve an 'F,' but if you give me that, I will lose
my scholarship. That will force me to drop out of college, and my poor, aged
parents, who yearn to see me graduate, will be grief-stricken for the rest of
their lives.

80