CHAPTER FOUR

INFORMAL FALLACIES

4.1. The Meaning of Fallacy

 A fallacy is a defect in an argument (or, a mistake
frequently committed in reasoning) that consists in
something other than merely false premises.
 It typically involves either an error in reasoning or an
illusion that makes a weak argument seem valid, or both.
 Consequently, fallacies can occur in both deductive and
inductive arguments, undermining their validity or
strength.
 4.2. Types of Fallacies
4.2.1. Formal fallacy
A formal fallacy arises from an error in the logical structure
of an argument (it is a structural defect of argument).
In distinguishing formal from informal fallacies, formal
fallacies occur only in deductive arguments with clearly
identifiable forms, such as categorical, disjunctive &
hypothetical syllogisms.
The next categorical syllogism demonstrates formal fallacy:
All Tigers are animals (All A are B).
All mammals are animals (All C are B).
Thus, all Tigers are mammals (Thus, all A are C).
Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the
argument is invalid.
 4.2.2. Informal fallacies

An informal fallacy, on the other hand, is an error in

reasoning that arises from flaws in the content, context, or
language of an argument, rather than its logical structure.
These fallacies often involve ambiguous language,
irrelevant premises, emotional appeals, or misleading
assumptions, making the argument appear valid or
persuasive when it is not.
Because they have the ability to hide their true
argumentative forms, informal fallacies can be identified
through the meaning of the words, how the statements are
constructed and how inferences are made that reveals the
faulty reasoning.
 4.2.2.1. Types of Informal Fallacies

There are five main groups of informal fallacies,

comprising around 22 specific types. These include:
A. Fallacies of Relevance (8 types)
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction (6 types)
C. Fallacies of Presumption (4 types)
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity (2 types)
E. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy (2 types).
 Certain specific fallacies have subcategories, resulting in a
total of approximately 32 informal fallacies when these
subcategories are included.
 A. Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of relevance are those which are committed chiefly due to
a provision premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 Fallacies of relevance occur when premises, though psychologically
persuasive, are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, making the
conclusion seem to follow from the premises even though it does not
logically derive from them. They contain Eight fallacies:
1. Appeal to force
2. Appeal to pity
3. Appeal to people (3 types)
4. Argument against the person (3 types)
5. Accident (3 types)
6. Straw man
7. Missing the point
8. Red Herring
 1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the
“Stick”)
 In logic, the term appeal refers to the act of supporting an
argument by citing authority, popular opinion, or external
sources, instead of logical reasoning.
 Appeal to force fallacy occurs when an arguer poses a
conclusion to another person and tells that some harm will
come to him if he does not accept the conclusion.
Examples:
1. You should agree with my proposal, or I’ll make sure you lose
your job.
2. You have to remember that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both
you and your family members if you do not drop charge you filed
against me of fraud and embezzlements. Got it?
 2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
 The term pity refers to a feeling of sorrow or compassion
caused by the suffering or misfortune of others.
 The appeal to pity attempts to support a conclusion by
evoking pity in the audience, even though the emotions
stirred are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 The appeal to pity fallacy typically involves manipulating
emotions rather than presenting logical support for the
argument.
 Example: Dawit: I deserve an A in this course, Doctor. Not
only did I study during my grand mam‘s funeral I also
passed up the heart transplant surgery.
 3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 This is a fallacy in which an argument seeks to persuade by
appealing to popular opinion, shared emotions, or the desire for
social acceptance.
 This fallacy exploits the desire to be loved, respected, admired,
valued, recognized, and accepted by others, or follow a majority
view, making the argument seem valid simply because it aligns with
widespread beliefs or preferences.
 Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: direct &
indirect.
 Direct approach: involves an arguer addressing a large audience,
stirring emotions and enthusiasm to gain acceptance of their
conclusion, with the goal of inciting a mob mentality.
 This is the strategy used by nearly every propagandist and
demagogue.
 Appeal to the People (Contn’d …)
 Indirect approach: the arguer aims his or her appeal not at
the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals
separately, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to
the crowd.
 The indirect approach is very common in most advertising industries.
 There are three recognizable forms in indirect approach:

I. Bandwagon fallacy
 It appeals to the desire of individuals to be considered as
part of the large group or Percent.
 Example: the majority of people in Ethiopia accept the opinion that
child circumcision is the right thing to do. Thus, you also should
accept that child circumcision is the right thing to do.
 II. Appeal to Vanity
 Associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or
imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if
you use it.
 Example: Join the ranks of influential leaders like Barack Obama,
who trust this prestigious watch (:. Rolex watch).
III. Appeal to Snobbery
 It occurs when an argument attempts to persuade others by
suggesting that something is valuable, superior, or desirable simply
because it is exclusive or only available to a select, elite group.
 Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as
superior to others.
 Example: The newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is not for
everyone to drink. But you are different from other people, aren’t
you? Therefore, the newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is for you.
 4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

 This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character,

motives, or other personal traits of the individual making
an argument.
 The goal is to undermine the opponent's credibility in order
to dismiss their position, without engaging with the
substance of their argument.
 This fallacy always involves two arguers.
 The argument against the person occurs in three forms:
I. The ad hominem Abusive Fallacy
II. The ad hominem Circumstantial Fallacy
III. The tu quoque (You too) Fallacy
 I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy
 In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first
person‘s argument by verbally abusing the first person. The
following is the form of ad hominem argument:
Premise: A is a person of bad character.
Conclusion: Thus, A’s argument should not be accepted.

II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

 It occurs when someone dismisses another person’s argument by
attacking their circumstances, interests, or situation, suggesting that
their position is biased or influenced by personal factors, rather than
addressing the merits of the argument itself..
 Example: Person A: I believe that universal healthcare is essential
for ensuring equal access to medical services. Person B: Of course
you support that—you work in the healthcare industry, so you're just
pushing your own agenda.
 III. The tu quoque (you too) fallacy

 This fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties
of the ad hominem argument, except that, the second
person tries to discredit the first by focusing on
inconsistencies between their behavior or life and the
argument, suggesting hypocrisy or bad faith instead of
addressing the argument itself.
 Example: Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot
advise me to stop smoking cigarette because you yourself
is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while
you yourself is smoking?
 The fallacy of accident is committed when a
general rule is applied to a specific case where it
doesn’t fit.
 This fallacy happens when a principle or rule is
misapplied because it doesn’t account for particular
features or contexts of the situation at hand.
 Example: Because stealing is wrong, a person who
steals food to survive is also guilty of wrongdoing.
 This fallacy occurs when someone deliberately
misrepresents another person's argument in order to make it
easier to attack or refute.
 Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person
creates a weakened or exaggerated version (the "straw man")
& then argues against that, rather than the original point.
 Example:
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 destroy the economy and put
millions out of work.
 This fallacy occurs when an argument fails to address the
issue at hand, instead providing a conclusion that is
unrelated or irrelevant to the original argument.
 Essentially, it involves presenting an argument or solution
that does not logically follow from the premises or is
unrelated to the point being debated.
 Example:
Original Argument: We need to address the rising
unemployment rates and improve job opportunities for the
population.
Missing the Point Response: We should focus on
increasing the minimum wage for workers.
 It is committed when the arguer diverts another person's
argument by changing the subject to a different but
sometimes slightly related one.
 Essentially, it involves presenting an argument that does
not logically follow from the premises or is unrelated to the
point being debated.
 Example: There is a good deal of talk these days about the
need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables.
But many of these foods are essential to our health. Carrots
are an excellent source of vitamin A, broccoli is rich in
iron, and oranges and grapefruits have lots of vitamin C.
 The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy, as
both divert attention.
 In the straw man, the arguer distorts the opponent’s argument, while in
the red herring, they ignore it and shift to an unrelated topic.
 The red herring and straw man fallacies can also be easily confused
with missing the point, as all three involve a type of irrelevance.
 However, red herring and straw man introduce a new set of premises,
while missing the point draws an unrelated conclusion from the
original premises.
 Moreover, in red herring and straw man, the conclusion follows
logically from the newly introduced premises, while in missing the
point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the original premises from which
it is derived.
Summary of Differences:
 Missing the Point: The response provides an unrelated or irrelevant
conclusion.
 Example: Stricter pollution regulations won’t solve all of the
world’s environmental problems.
 Red Herring: The response introduces an entirely different topic to
distract from the original issue.
 Example: Instead of worrying about pollution, we should focus
on boosting the economy and creating more jobs.
 Straw Man: The response misrepresents or exaggerates the original
argument to make it easier to refute.
 Example: People who want stricter pollution regulations clearly
think we should shut down all factories and stop using modern
technology.
 Fallacies of weak induction, unlike fallacies of relevance, arise from
an insufficiently strong connection between the premises and the
conclusion to adequately support the latter.
 Like the fallacies of relevance, however, the fallacies of weak
induction often involve emotional grounds for believing the
conclusion.
 They contain Six fallacies:
9. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
10. Hasty Generalization
11. False Cause
12. Weak Analogy
13. Slippery Slope
14. Appeal to Ignorance
 The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy, also known as ad
verecundiam (a Latin term meaning appeal to respect), occurs when
an argument relies on an authority whose reliability is reasonably
questionable.
 Ad verecundiam fallacies are common in advertising when celebrities
who lack the relevant expertise endorse products.
 Example: Dr. Nahom, who has a PhD in Environment &
development management, says that this herbal remedy/treatment
cures diabetes, so it must be effective.
 When evaluating whether an individual is a qualified authority,
consider two key points:
1. Some individuals may hold expertise in multiple fields
2. Certain areas lack universally recognized authorities due to their
subjective nature, such as aesthetics, personal preferences, and
morality.
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.
This fallacy relies on a lack of evidence rather than the
presence of evidence to support a conclusion.
Key Characteristics:
1. Assumes that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
2. Shifts the burden of proof to others, expecting them to disprove
the claim.
Example: No one has ever been able to prove the existence
of Evil eye. Thus, We must therefore conclude that Evil
eye a myth.
It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a
selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
It occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the
sample is not representative of the group.
Samples that are not representative are said to be biased.
Example: Suppose a person visits a new city and meets
two people who are rude. They might then conclude,
"People in this city are rude.”
This is a hasty generalization because the conclusion is
based on a small and potentially unrepresentative sample,
leading to an unwarranted broad claim.
The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link
between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
 This fallacy arises when someone assumes that one event
directly causes another without sufficient evidence to
justify the connection.
 False Cause Fallacy occurs in three forms:
I. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore
because of this)
II. Non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause)
III. Oversimplified Cause.
 Fallacy Description Example

Post Hoc Assumes that because I wore my lucky

Ergo Propter A happened before B, A socks, and my team
Hoc caused B. won the game.
Non Causa Mistakenly identifies Forgetting my
Pro Causa something as the cause umbrella causes to
when it is not. rain.
Oversimplifi Reduces a complex The economy is
ed Cause issue to a single cause, failing because of
ignoring other the new tax policy.
contributing factors.
 This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a relatively small or
minor action will inevitably lead to a chain of events resulting in
significant & often disastrous consequences, without providing
evidence for the inevitability of these outcomes.
 This form of reasoning can be used in a positive or negative way.
 Key Features of the Slippery Slope Fallacy:
 Assumes a chain reaction without sufficient evidence.
 Exaggerates the consequences of a minor action.
 Often used to evoke fear or discourage a particular choice.
 Example: A Chinese firm runs a donkey slaughterhouse in Bishoftu,
violates Ethiopian norms. If this continues, workers may start eating
donkey meat, influencing their families, neighbors, and eventually the
entire country, leading to the collapse of Ethiopian food culture.
Therefore, the company must be shut down to prevent this.
 This fallacy committed when the analogy between things, situations
and circumstance is not strong enough to support the conclusion that
is drawn.
 This type of reasoning is flawed because the similarities between the
two items are either superficial or irrelevant to the argument's
conclusion.
 This type of reasoning is flawed because the similarities between the
two items are either superficial or irrelevant to the argument's
conclusion.
 Example: Hana's car and Helen's car share several attributes,
including the same color, a fuel efficiency of 16 km per liter, a similar
shape, & similar fuel tank capacities. Based on these similarities, it is
concluded that since Hana's car is manufactured in Japan, Helen's car
must also manufactured in Japan.
 The Fallacy of Presumption occurs when an argument is
based on an assumption that is not explicitly stated, lacks
sufficient evidence, or is outright false.
These assumptions lead to faulty reasoning, as the
conclusion depends on something that has not been proven
or is unwarranted.
They contain Four fallacies:
15. Begging the question
16. Complex Question
17. False Dichotomy
18. Suppressed Evidence.
This fallacy is committed whenever the arguer creates the
illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support
for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false key
premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the
conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.
Instead of proving a point, the reasoning circularly assumes
what it is trying to establish, making it logically invalid.
Example: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of
murder because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that
someone be put to death for having committed such hateful
and inhuman acts.
 This argument is missing the premise, Abortion is a form of
murder, which is crucial for the soundness of the arguments.
The fallacy of complex question is committed when
two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a
single question and a single answer is then given to
both of them.
The question is structured in a way that any direct
answer (e.g., "yes" or "no") appears to confirm the
embedded presumption, forcing the respondent into
a false dilemma.
Example: Have you stopped cheating on your
exams?
This fallacy occurs when an argument presents only
two possible options, ignoring other valid
alternatives.
This fallacy oversimplifies a situation & forces a
choice between two extremes, even though more
options may exist.
Example: You're either with us or against us.
The term suppressed refers to the act of intentionally hiding
certain information or actions from being expressed,
noticed, or considered.
This fallacy occurs when an argument presents a one-sided
view by selectively including supportive evidence while
deliberately omitting relevant information that could
weaken or contradict the conclusion.
Example: This new medication is highly effective, as it
improved symptoms in 90% of patients during the trial.
 The arguer failed to mention that the trial also revealed severe
side effects in 50% of participants, which could affect perceptions
of the medication's safety.
The suppressed evidence fallacy is similar to the form of
begging the question in which the arguer leaves a key
premise out of the argument.
The difference is that suppressed evidence leaves out a
premise that requires a different conclusion, while that form
of begging the question leaves out a premise that is needed
to support the conclusion.
Suppressed Evidence: Flaw arises from incomplete or
biased presentation of information.
Begging the Question: Flaw arises from assuming the truth
of the conclusion without providing evidence to support it.
These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some
form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both).
An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to
different interpretations in a given context.
They contain Two fallacies:
19. Fallacy of Equivocation
20. Fallacy of Amphiboly.
Equivocation refers to the use of a word or phrase with
multiple meanings in an argument.
 This fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with
multiple meanings in the same argument, leading to
confusion or misleading conclusions.
This fallacy exploits the ambiguity of language, where a
term is used in one sense in one part of the argument and in
another sense later on, without clarification.
 Example: The law is the law, and the law must be obeyed.
Therefore, we must always obey the law of gravity.
 The term “law” in this example is used in two different senses-
one as a legal rule (legal law) and the other as a scientific
principle (law of nature)- creating confusion in the argument.
 This fallacy occurs when an argument relies on a statement that is
grammatically ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretations.
 The ambiguity arises from the structure or phrasing of the sentence,
leading to confusion or misinterpretation of the argument.
Example 1: I saw the man with the telescope.
 It is unclear whether the speaker saw a man who had a telescope
or whether the speaker used a telescope to see the man.
 Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two key ways:
1. Equivocation arises from ambiguity in word meanings, while amphiboly
stems from syntactical ambiguity in a statement.
2. Amphiboly typically involves misinterpreting someone else’s ambiguous
statement, while equivocation often involves the arguer’s own creation of
ambiguity in word usage.
 Occasionally, however, the two fallacies occur together.
These fallacies occur when an argument mistakenly
relies on the analogy of grammatical structures,
assuming that similarities in grammar imply logical
equivalence.
These fallacies misapply grammatical relationships
to make conclusions, leading to faulty reasoning.
They contain Two fallacies:
21. Fallacy of Composition
22. Fallacy of and Division.
These fallacies occur when one assumes that what is true
for the parts must also be true for the whole.
Key Points:
 Assuming parts have the same properties as the whole
 Mistakenly applying individual characteristics to the group as a
whole
 Doesn't consider how parts interact as a collective.
Example: Each player on the team is an excellent athlete,
so the team must be excellent as a whole.
 While each player may be skilled, it doesn't necessarily mean the
team as a whole will perform excellently due to factors like
teamwork, strategy, or coordination.
 Composition is sometimes confused with hasty generalization.
 The only time this confusion is possible is when the whole is a class
(such as the class of people in a city or the class of trees in a forest),
and the parts are the members of the class.
 In such a case, Composition assumes that what is true for individual
members of a class is true for the whole class.
 Conversely, Hasty Generalization moves from a small,
unrepresentative sample to a broad conclusion about a larger group.
 Composition Example: Every person I met in this city was friendly
and helpful. Therefore, the whole population of the city must be
friendly and helpful.
 Hasty Generalization Example: I met three people from this city, and
all of them were rude. Therefore, everyone in this city must be rude.
Division is the reverse of the composition fallacy.
This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that what is true
of the whole must also be true of its individual parts.
This fallacy involves incorrectly attributing the properties
or characteristics of a group to its individual components.
Example 1: Arsenal football club is highly talented,
therefore, each player on the team must be highly talented.
 The team as a whole may be successful due to a variety of
factors, such as teamwork or strategy, but that does not
necessarily mean that each individual player is highly talented.
 Example 2: Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its
component elements, sodium & chlorine, are non-poisonous.