FALLACIES IN

REASONING
Fallacies are common
errors in reasoning
that will undermine the
logic of your argument
“Faulty Reasoning”
Defects that weaken
Example:
“My roommate said her
philosophy class was hard,
and the one I’m in is hard,
too. All philosophy classes
must be hard!” Two people’s
experiences are, in this case,
“President Jones raised taxes, and
then the rate of violent crime went
up. Jones is responsible for the rise
in crime.” The increase in taxes
might or might not be one factor in
the rising crime rates, but the
argument hasn’t shown us that one
caused the other.
“Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with
metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And
yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase
of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are
equally ridiculous.”
While guns and hammers do share certain features,
these features (having metal parts, being tools,
and being potentially useful for violence) are not
the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict
guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can
easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a
distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—
it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer.
ARGUMENTUM AD
MISERICORDIAM
“APPEAL TO PITY”
Argument from pity
Variation of the “appeal to emotion”.
Someone tries to win support for an
argument or idea by exploiting his/her
opponents’ feelings of pity or guilt.
occurs when someone attempts to
persuade others by provoking feelings of
guilt or pity.
Instead of presenting factual information
and evidence to support an argument,
one may try to play on people’s feelings.
However, this is a manipulative tactic
because feelings of pity are usually
irrelevant to the point being made.
Appealing to a person’s
unfortunate circumstance as a way
of getting someone to accept a
conclusion

Manipulates someone’s feelings of

pity or guilt in order to get them to
 EXAMPLES:
“You should not find the defendant
guilty of murder, since it would break
his poor mother’s heart to see him
sent to jail.”
 “It’s wrong to tax corporations—
think of all the money they give to
charity, and of the costs they already
Other examples:
 “You need to pass me in this course, since
I’ll lose my scholarship if you don’t.”
Commercials that show starving children in
Africa before asking for donations to feed
them.
Saying that you support a specific candidate
for class president, only because he has
recently been diagnosed with cancer.
When you did not finish an assignment on
time, you tell your teacher about how your
printer was out of ink, but that you didn’t
want to ask your mom to go to the store
because she works nights, doesn’t get much
sleep, and she was sleeping.
A young mother asks for assistance from a
local church and she brings her three young
children with her to speak to the pastor.
 “Could you please change my grade from D to C? I
worked really hard for this assignment. I even pulled an
all-nighter to finish on time, and my parents will be so
disappointed!”
 “Your Honor, esteemed members of the jury, my client is
accused of the serious crime of embezzlement. However, I
urge you to take a look at the heart-wrenching
circumstances of his life until now. My client had a
terrible childhood. A few months ago he lost his wife to a
tragic accident, leaving him with the care of their two
children. This man has suffered enough. If you find him
guilty, his life and the lives of his children will be ruined.”
 A defense attorney argues, “The defendant, having
endured poverty as a child, deserves leniency for
committing insurance fraud. It would be unjust to
penalize someone whose life was shaped by such
hardship, regardless of the nature of the crime.”
This argument exemplifies the appeal to pity fallacy
because it diverts attention from the crime of
insurance fraud to the irrelevant subject of the
defendant’s difficult childhood, appealing to the
audience’s sympathies rather than making a
reasoned argument from the law.
In campaign speeches, politicians running
for office frequently describe their humble
upbringings and personal struggles. This
strategy evokes sympathy from some
voters, eliciting support based on an
appeal to pity rather than focusing on the
logical reasons to vote for a candidate,
such as well-reasoned policy plans,
experience, or qualifications.
“Most illegal immigrants are not violent
criminals.”
 “We hear that most illegal immigrants are not violent criminals.
Ask the victims or relatives of people who have died or have been
injured by illegal immigrants how they feel about this argument.”
-- In this example, the speaker is using the suffering or pain of
victims or their relatives as evidence to support their argument.
However, the natural sympathy we feel for the victims and their
families does not prove the conclusion to be true (i.e., that all
illegal immigrants are violent criminals).
--By evoking feelings of sympathy, the speaker tries to dismiss the
original argument (i.e., that not all illegal immigrants are violent
offenders) without providing any factual evidence or logical
reasoning. While the suffering of victims and their relatives should
be acknowledged, it does not necessarily invalidate the argument.
 ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
(ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
The fallacy ad ignorantiam, or an appeal to
ignorance, occurs when someone argues that
something must be either true or false because
it hasn’t been proven to be one way or the other.
In other words, a particular belief is said to be
true because you do not know that it is not true.
The issue typically has to do with something
that is either incapable of being proven true or
false, or has not yet been proven true or false.
Concluding that
something is true since
you can’t prove it is false
Whatever has not been
proven false must be
true and vice versa.
The argument says,
"No one knows it is
true; therefore it is
false," or "No one
knows it is false,
therefore it is true."
This fallacy occurs when you
argue that your conclusion
must be true, because there
is no evidence against it.
This fallacy wrongly shifts
the burden of proof away
from the one making the
claim.
Usually, the burden of proof lies with
the one who is making the assertion.
You can’t accuse your friend of stealing
your iPhone and then ask him to prove
he didn’t do it. As the one making the
allegation, the burden rests with you to
offer proof of the theft. By expecting
your friend to prove himself innocent,
you are shifting the burden of proof,
which generally rests on the person
who sets forth the claim.
EXAMPLES:
1. Him: "C'mon, hook up
with me tonight." Her:
"Why should I?" Him:
"Why shouldn't you?“
2. Since you haven't
been able to prove
your innocence, I
must assume you're
guilty.
3. You know that
scientists can't prove
that UFO's do not visit
the Earth, so it makes
sense to believe in
them.
4. Even the atheist
Freud admitted that the
existence of God can't
be disproved. So we
have good reason to
continue to believe in
him.
5. I guess I
didn't get the
job. They never
called me back.
6. She hasn't said
she doesn't like you,
right? So she's
probably interested.
Call her up.
7. Since all who have
tried to prove freedom
of the will have failed,
we are safe in
assuming we are not
free.
8. I thought I had
every reason to think
I was doing fine
leading the group; no
one complained.
 OTHER EXAMPLES:
“No one has objected to
Lander’s parking policies during
the last month of classes, so I
suppose those policies are very
good.”
“God must exist, since no one
can demonstrate that he does
Since the class has no questions
concerning the topics discussed in
class, the class is ready for a test.
Biology professor to skittish
students in lab: There is no
evidence that frogs actually feel
pain; it is true.
(They exhibit pain behavior, but as
they have no consciousness, they
feel no pain.)
“There is no compelling evidence that
UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore,
UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life
elsewhere in the Universe.”
“Since you haven’t been able to prove
your innocence, I must assume you’re
guilty.”
"She hasn't said she doesn't like you,
right? So she's probably interested. Call
her up.”
“I guess I didn’t get the job. They never
called me back.”
Since we cannot prove that P is true,
so P is false; or
Since we cannot prove that P is false,
so P is true

E.g. You cannot prove that spirits do

not exists. So there’s really spirits.

No one has shown that ghosts are

real, so they must not exist.
 EQUIVOCATION
Fallacy of language / ambiguity.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs

when a key term or phrase in an
argument is used in an ambiguous
way, with one meaning in one portion
of the argument and then another
meaning in another portion of the
argument.
The equivocation fallacy refers
to the use of an ambiguous word
or phrase in more than one
sense within the same
argument. Because this change
of meaning happens without
warning, it renders the argument
invalid or even misleading.
Deceives by using a
word in two
different ways
within an argument.
 A self-defense class teaches participants how to fight
better, but fighting is wrong. So we shouldn’t have a
self-defense class on campus.

Look at the arguer’s final conclusion: we shouldn’t

have self-defense classes on campus. They don’t
claim this is because the classes would teach
participants how to fight better but because fighting is
wrong. That second claim, that fighting is wrong, does
not logically follow the first claim. Again, whether it’s
true or not is irrelevant here—logically, a more sound
claim would be that making students better fighters
would lead to more interpersonal violence.
Equivocation occurs when a word or
phrase is used in one sense in one
premise and in another sense in
some other needed premise or in
the conclusion
(example: “The loss made Jones
mad [= angry]; mad [= insane]
people should be institutionalized;
so Jones should be
institutionalized.”).
HOW DOES THE EQUIVOCATION LOGICAL
FALLACY WORK?
The equivocation fallacy
involves using an ambiguous
word or phrase whose meaning
changes throughout the
argument. This can be because:
1. The speaker deliberately shifts from the literal to
the figurative meaning of a word. For instance,
“bright” means “reflecting light” but also
“intelligent.”
2. A word has multiple meanings (a phenomenon
called polysemy) and the correct interpretation lies
in the context. The word “bank” for instance may
refer to either a river bank or a financial institution.
3. A word resembles another word (e.g., they are
homonyms) because they share the same
pronunciation or spelling. For example, the word
“lies” sounds the same as the word “lice,” but they
have very different meanings.
 EXAMPLES:
Premise 1: A feather is light
(WEIGHT).
Premise 2:What is light (COLOR)
cannot be dark.
Conclusion: Therefore, a feather
cannot be dark.
PREMISE 1: Newspapers have the
duty to print stories for public
interest.
PREMISE 2: The public has interest
in rumors regarding celebrities.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is not
wrong for newspapers to pass on
rumors about celebrities.
Premise 1: Annoying co-
workers are a headache.
Premise 2: Painkillers can
help you get rid of a headache.
Conclusion: Painkillers can
help you get rid of annoying co-
workers.
Noisy children are a real headache. Two aspirin
will make a headache go away. Therefore, two
aspirin will make noisy children go away.
The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in
nature. Therefore there must be a cosmic
lawgiver.
I have the right to watch "The Real World."
Therefore it's right for me to watch the show.
So, I think I'll watch this "Real World" marathon
tonight instead of studying for my exam.
I told my family that I'd miss the reunion
because I'm coming home from vacation that
week. I get home Thursday, and the reunion is
Friday, but I didn't lie to them about when I
would be home.
Salad is healthy, and taco salad is a salad.
Therefore, taco salad is healthy.
Philosophy is supposed to stand on neutral
ground. But most philosophers argue for
very definite conclusions. This is hardly
standing on neutral ground. Shouldn't we
conclude that most philosophers aren't
doing philosophy?
God: "One million years to me is a second."
Man: "What about one million dollars, my
Lord?" God: "A penny." Man: "May my Lord
give me a penny?" God: "No problem, just
a second."
Equivocation is often
spelled out in this
format: “If X is Y, and Y
is Z, then Z must be
X.”
Here are a few
examples:
All men are created equal.
Women aren’t men, so all
women aren’t created equal.
Cats make great pets. Tigers
are big cats. That means tigers
make great pets.
Soil is natural. Natural things
are good for you. So it’s okay to
ingest soil.
Salad is healthy, and taco salad is a
salad. Therefore, taco salad is
healthy.
(Obviously, taco salad isn’t a dish
most people would consider
healthy. Sometimes, equivocation is
used for a humorous effect.)
A self-defense class teaches
participants how to fight better,
but fighting is wrong. So we
 EQUIVOCATION CAN ALSO LOOK
LIKE THIS:
I have the right to free speech, so it’s
right for me to say whatever I want.

I told my family that I’d miss the

reunion because I’m coming home
from vacation that week. I get home
Thursday, and the reunion is Friday,
but I didn’t lie to them about when I
would be home.
EQUIVOCATION FALLACY EXAMPLE IN REAL LIFE
You and your friend are discussing how bad
sugar is for your health. Your friend, who
has a sweet tooth, claims that sugar is an
important source of fuel throughout the
body, so sugar is not bad.
However, your friend seems to purposefully
forget that blood sugar (glucose) is not the
same as table sugar (sucrose).
For example, when asked about an
overdue assignment, a student
might tell their teacher that they
worked on the assignment the night
before. It’s technically true, but while
the student assumes the teacher
thinks they mean “finished,” they
actually meant that they merely did
some work on the still-unfinished
assignment.
HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

A driver who gets pulled over tells the officer that

they drank only a few beers when in reality they had
a few beers plus two mixed drinks.
A consultant tells you they haven’t worked for your
direct competitor but fails to mention that they’ve
worked for other competitors.
A pharmaceutical company states that a drug could
have minor side effects when they know that the
drug can actually cause heart attacks.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
(ARGUMENT TO THE MAN/PERSON)
Ad hominem literally means “to the
person” as in being “directed at the
person.” An ad hominem argument is
therefore an attack directed against the
person who makes a statement rather
than the validity of their statement. In
everyday language, this is known as a
personal attack.
Used to convince that someone’s
argument should be rejected because
of his personal background -character,
motives, socio-economic status,
history, religion, etc.
Attacking a person’s character instead
of the content of that person’s
argument.
Not simply name-calling, this argument
suggests that the argument is flawed
because of its source.
is an attempt to discredit
someone’s argument by
personally attacking them.
Instead of discussing the
argument itself, criticism is
directed toward the
opponent’s character, which is
irrelevant to the discussion.
Ad hominem fallacy is a group of
argumentation strategies that focus on
the person making an argument rather
than their viewpoint. This involves an
attack on any aspect of the opponent’s
personality, like their intelligence,
reputation, or group affiliations. The
attack can be subtle, such as casting
doubt on a person’s character, or
overt, like insulting someone.
AD HOMINEM FALLACY EXAMPLE
Person 1: I think it is important
to enforce minimum-wage
legislation so that workers are
not exploited.
Person 2: Nonsense. You only
say that because you just can’t
get a good job!
The argument ad hominem
(speaking “against the man”
rather than to the issue), in which
the premises may only make a
personal attack on a person who
holds some thesis, instead of
offering grounds showing why
what he says is false.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF AD HOMINEM
ARGUMENTS
 Abusive ad hominem is a direct attack on the other
person’s character, targeting their age, character, gender
identity, appearance, etc. Abusive ad hominem arguments
are usually fallacious because the attack is irrelevant to the
discussion. For example, “who is going to vote for a person
looking like this?” is a fallacy because appearance has
nothing to do with one’s leadership abilities.
 involves insulting an individual based on irrelevant personal
characteristics, often appealing to societal prejudices (e.g.,
a person might discredit a CEO’s opinion by saying that, as
a woman, she is “too emotional” to be a leader).
Circumstantial ad hominem (or appeal to
motive) argues that a person’s circumstances, such
as their job, political affiliation, or other vested
interests, motivate their argument and thus it must
be biased and false. For example, a salesperson may
tell you that the pair of jeans you’re trying on looks
good on you, and you may half-jokingly point out that
of course they think so since they want to make a
sale.
 criticizes an individual’s assumed bias based on
circumstances of the person’s life that may or may
not be related (e.g., a politician who is married to the
CEO of a large company might be viewed as biased
in favor of that corporation).
Tu quoque (“you too”) ad hominem is an
attempt to refute an argument by attacking its
proponent and accusing them of hypocrisy (i.e ,
pointing to a contradiction between their words and
their deeds). For example, a doctor suggests that a
patient should lose weight, and the patient dismisses
the advice on the grounds that the doctor has a few
extra pounds too.
involves discrediting an argument by labeling the
speaker as hypocritical and inconsistent (e.g., a
politician advocating for funding public
transportation may be dismissed by critics who point
out that the politician regularly uses private jets for
travel).
Guilt by association ad hominem is a
variant in which someone is attacked because
of their alleged connection with a person or
group that has an unfavorable reputation. For
example, “Stalin was evil and against religion.
All people against religion are evil.”
targets a person based on perceived
association with a group or individual (e.g.,
someone might argue that a professor who was
educated at a controversial university is
untrustworthy based solely on that association).
Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem
where (irrelevant) negative information is
preemptively presented to an audience to
discredit whatever the opponent is about to say.
For example, “before you listen to her, I should
remind you that she has been charged with
embezzlement.”
attempt to dismiss an argument by commenting
on the person who will present it (e.g., a
candidate might say in a debate, “My opponent,
who is funded by oil companies, will of course
argue against renewable energy initiatives”).
 EXAMPLES:
Student: ”Hey, Professor Moore, we
shouldn’t have to read this book by Freud.
Everyone knows he used cocaine.”

“Yeah , I think everyone’s opinion counts on
moral matters like that, but that Lila sleeps
around with anything. I know of at least one
marriage she’s broken up, so why should
her opinion count on anything, much less
morality?”
“Of course Marx’ theories about the
ideal society are bunk. The guy spent
all his time in the library. We cannot
approve of this recycling idea. It was
thought of by a bunch of hippie
communist weirdos.”
“I was assigned a personal trainer at
the Rec, and he gave me a new
workout program. But I don’t have
any confidence in his expertise, since
he has obvious trouble controlling his
“Andrea Dworkin has written several
books arguing that pornography
harms women. But Dworkin is just
ugly and bitter, so why should we
listen to her?”
“You have no idea what you're talking
about; you've only lived here for six
months.”
“It's hard to take your claims
seriously because you spend your
days playing video games.”
During a debate on healthy eating,
one participant, Alex, argues that a
vegetarian diet is healthier and more
environmentally sustainable. Another
participant, Jordan, responds not by
addressing Alex’s points but by
saying, “Your argument is invalid
because you’re not even a
vegetarian yourself, so you’re
just a hypocrite.”
In a debate about renewable energy, one
might say, “Your ideas are not worth
considering because you’re just an
uneducated person with no expertise
in energy.”
During a discussion on healthy eating, if
someone argues for the benefits of a vegan
diet, a tu quoque response would be, “But
you were eating a burger with beef
yesterday, so your argument is
invalid.”
In a local community meeting, residents
are discussing the implementation of a
new recycling program. One resident,
Sarah, proposes an innovative approach
to increasing recycling rates. Another
resident, John, responds not by addressing
the merits of Sarah’s proposal but by
saying, “Sarah can’t be serious about
recycling. She’s one of the biggest
consumers of plastic products in the
neighborhood.”
The ad hominem argument or personal
attack is very common in public
discourse, especially in the run-up to
elections.

In the 2022 presidential election,

candidates resorted to ad hominem
attacks during the presidential debate,
their speeches, and on social media.
"Look at that face. Would
anyone vote for that? Can
you imagine that, the face
of our next president?" -
Donald Trump (2015, in
debate remarks critiquing
candidate Carly Fiorina.)
In an online political discussion, one
person ridicules another person’s
grammar to dismiss a well-
reasoned argument.
This commonly used ad hominem
tactic allows people to feel they’ve
won an argument without
presenting any reasoning or
evidence.
A professor is presenting their latest research on
quantum mechanics to a group of colleagues. At
the end of the presentation, a person whispers to
the other: “I don’t believe a word. I think it’s all
made-up. Do you realize that this person has been
cheating and lying to their partner for years?”
In this context, whether the professor cheated on
their partner has no bearing on their ability as a
researcher. Therefore, the ad hominem argument
is fallacious. Had the professor falsified research
data in the past, then it would have been fair to
bring this up and cast doubt on the professor’s
research ethic.
WHEN IS AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT
VALID?
 An ad hominem argument is not always fallacious.
Because ad hominem arguments have been associated
with dirty tricks and name-calling, they are usually
considered as hits below the belt that do not advance a
healthy debate.

 However, an ad hominem argument can sometimes be

used as a legitimate rhetorical strategy. When the claims
made about a person’s character are relevant to the
discussion or the conclusions being drawn, and they are
properly justified, the ad hominem argument is valid.
For example, attacks on a
person who has cheated on their
partner are irrelevant to the
quality of their mathematical
reasoning, but they are relevant
to deciding whether this person
should be the leader of an
association that emphasizes
family values.
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM(APPEALING
TO THE PEOPLE)
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
is a fallacious argument which is based on
claiming a truth or affirming something is good
because many people think so.

Based on the assumption that the opinion

of the majority is always valid: “everyone
believes it, so you should too”.
the argument ad populum
(an appeal “to the
people”), which, instead
of offering logical
reasons, appeals to such
popular attitudes as the
dislike of injustice
APPEAL TO POPULARITY
APPEAL TO NUMBERS
 “BANDWAGON
POLICY/EFFECT”,the
fallacy of attempting to
prove a conclusion on the
grounds that all or most
 BANDWAGON FALLACY
EXAMPLE
“Everyone is getting the
new smartphone as soon
as it comes out this
weekend. You should get it
too.”
When we are trying to persuade
someone about our ideas,
preferences, or beliefs, it is often
tempting to simply claim that the
majority of the people agree with us.
Words that imply that many people
believe, do, or buy something (such
as “the majority,” “lots,” or “most”)
are typical to this fallacy.
EX.
You’re at a bookstore browsing
for books with a friend.
Although you are an avid sci-fi
reader, your friend picks up a
memoir and tells you that you
should read the book because
it’s a bestseller.
“Smoking must
be safe because
millions of people
have been doing it
for years.”
 EXAMPLES:
“You should vote for a certain candidate
because the majority of people support
that candidate or the candidate is popular.”
“Low carb diets must be healthy. All my
friends are trying them and losing tons of
weight!”
“Over four million people have switched to
our insurance company, shouldn’t you?”
“But officer, I don’t deserve a ticket;
everyone goes this speed. If I went any
slower, I wouldn’t be going with the stream
of traffic.”
Extended warranties are a very popular
purchase by the consumer, so extended
warranties must be good for the consumer.
(The fact that something is popular has no bearing on whether it is
beneficial.)
Everyone drives over the speed limit, so it
should not be against the law.
(Just because a lot of people do something, it does not make it is
the right thing to do.)
“Everyone says that it’s okay
to lie as long as you don’t
get caught.”
“It might be against the law
to drink when you are 18
years old, but everyone does
it, so it’s okay.”
“You definitely need to buy
Statements like “9 out of 10 people prefer
our brand” use popularity to imply quality,
suggesting that a product is superior
because many people choose it, without
arguing its merits.
“The majority of our countrymen think we
should have military operations overseas;
therefore, it’s the right thing to do.”
 The governor has high approval ratings; he
is therefore doing a good job.
If you're shopping for a
smartphone, go with the iPhone 13.
It's the best-selling phone right
now; the numbers don't lie.
Everybody in our family goes to
Georgetown for undergrad, so it
only makes sense that you do too.
It's okay to cheat on exams
because everybody does it.
WHEN IS AN AD POPULUM ARGUMENT
LEGITIMATE?
It is important to remember that ad populum
arguments are not always fallacious. When the
belief of the majority is relevant and serves as
acceptable evidence for what is true, an ad
populum argument is perfectly legitimate.
This is the case when it comes to matters decided
by a majority (e.g., the definition of words, jury
verdicts, or the outcome of a political election). In
such cases, the belief of the majority can be a
reasonable basis for accepting the claim.
Thank you for
listening!!!
"If I am found guilty of this crime, my children
will be left without a parent at home.
"When I asked you if I should turn left, you said
right. Therefore, I was correct and you cannot
get mad at me.“
I’ve never fallen off my bike before, so there’s
no reason for me to start wearing a helmet
when I ride.
Don’t listen to Becky’s opinion on welfare; she
just opposes it because she’s from a rich family