Addis Ababa University College of Social Science
Group Assignment (Section 2, Group 4)
Fallacies of Presumption
Group members ID
1. Blen Bayouh......................................................................................................UGR/6215/17
2. Dawit Admassu.................................................................................................UGR/3536/17
3. Dibora Seifu......................................................................................................UGR/2838/17
4. Emanda Aweke..................................................................................................UGR/8935/17
5. Fanuel Admassu................................................................................................UGR/7818/17
6. Fisehatsion Bekele.............................................................................................UGR/7744/17
7. Henok Abebe ....................................................................................................UGR/2288/17
8. Milka Araya.......................................................................................................UGR/8921/17
9. Yordanos Dagnew..............................................................................................UGR/5955/17
10. Zeamanuel Mekbib.........................................................................................UGR/1893/17
Submission date: 3,Jan,2025
Table of Contents
Introduction
................................................................................................................................................
1
[Link] the Question
................................................................................................................................................
2
o Definition and Nature
....................................................................................................................................
2
o Example 1
....................................................................................................................................
2
o Example 2
....................................................................................................................................
2
[Link] Question
................................................................................................................................................
3
o Definition and Nature
....................................................................................................................................
3
o Example 1
....................................................................................................................................
3
o Example 2
....................................................................................................................................
3
[Link] Dichotomy
................................................................................................................................................
4
o Definition and Nature
....................................................................................................................................
4
o Example 1
....................................................................................................................................
4
o Example 2
....................................................................................................................................
4
[Link] Evidence
................................................................................................................................................
5
o Definition and Nature
....................................................................................................................................
5
o Example 1
....................................................................................................................................
5
o Example 2
....................................................................................................................................
5
Conclusion
................................................................................................................................................
6
References
................................................................................................................................................
7
Introduction
Fallacies of presumption occur when an argument is based on an assumption that is not explicitly
justified or adequately supported. These fallacies often lead to flawed reasoning and erroneous
conclusions. In philosophy and critical thinking, fallacies are classified into two broad
categories: formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies arise due to a defect in the logical
structure of an argument, making it invalid. For instance, the fallacy of denying the antecedent is
a formal fallacy: "If it rains, the ground will be wet. It did not rain; therefore, the ground is not
wet." This reasoning is flawed because the ground could be wet for other reasons, such as a
sprinkler system.
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, pertain to errors in reasoning that depend on the content or
context of the argument rather than its form. An example is the begging the question fallacy,
where an argument assumes the truth of what it seeks to prove: "The government’s policies are
effective because they work." This argument fails to provide independent evidence and instead
restates the conclusion in different terms.
Fallacies of presumption, a subset of informal fallacies, specifically occur when an argument's
premises presume too much, often by taking for granted information that has not been proven or
adequately explained. This paper explores four specific fallacies of presumption: begging the
question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence. Each fallacy will be
discussed in depth, with definitions, nature, and two examples provided to illustrate their
applications and implications.
1
[Link] the Question
Definition and Nature
Begging the question, also known as petitio principii, is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion
of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in its premises. Instead of offering new
evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion, the argument merely restates it in different
terms, creating a circular and uninformative line of reasoning. This fallacy undermines the
credibility of the argument, as it fails to provide independent validation of the claim being made.
At its core, begging the question occurs when the premises and conclusion of an argument are
not distinct. This lack of distinction makes it impossible for the argument to persuade anyone
who does not already agree with the conclusion. It often relies on implicit assumptions that are
not evident or agreed upon by all parties in the discussion. Consequently, such arguments are
unconvincing and logically flawed.
This fallacy is common in both everyday discourse and formal reasoning, often slipping into
arguments unnoticed. It can take various forms, such as circular reasoning, where the conclusion
is directly restated, or assumed premises, where an unstated assumption indirectly supports the
conclusion. Identifying and avoiding begging the question is crucial for ensuring logical rigor
and meaningful debate.
Example 1
"God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God."
This argument is a classic example of begging the question. The conclusion, "God exists," is
assumed in the premise, "the Bible is the word of God." The argument relies on the validity of
the Bible’s claim, which is itself dependent on the existence of God. By assuming the truth of
what it seeks to prove, the argument becomes circular and fails to provide independent evidence
for its conclusion.
To analyze this further, consider what would convince a skeptic who does not already believe in
the divine authority of the Bible. Since the premise (the Bible is the word of God) hinges on the
conclusion (God exists), the argument does not move the discussion forward. It illustrates the
fallacy by presupposing what it aims to demonstrate, thus rendering it logically invalid.
Example 2
"The candidate is trustworthy because he says he’s honest."
This example demonstrates begging the question through reliance on the candidate's own
testimony as proof of their trustworthiness. The premise, "he says he’s honest," presupposes the
conclusion, "the candidate is trustworthy," without offering any independent verification of the
claim. Instead of presenting external evidence, such as a record of honest behavior or
testimonials from others, the argument depends entirely on the candidate’s assertion.
2
The fallacy becomes evident when scrutinized critically. Trustworthiness is a quality that
requires validation through consistent actions or credible endorsements. By merely repeating the
candidate’s claim, the argument bypasses the need for substantiation and assumes the conclusion
within the premise. This form of reasoning is logically deficient and unlikely to persuade a
critical audience.
[Link] Question
Definition and Nature
The complex question fallacy, also known as a loaded question, occurs when a question contains
a presumption that limits direct answers or forces the respondent to accept a contentious premise.
This fallacy manipulates the respondent into making admissions they may not agree with by
embedding a controversial assumption into the question itself. Such questions are commonly
used to corner or discredit someone without offering them a fair opportunity to respond.
Loaded questions often take the form of "Have you stopped doing X?" or "Why do you always
do Y?" These queries presuppose an unproven assertion, making it challenging to answer
without implicitly endorsing the assumption. The fallacy thrives on its ability to divert attention
away from the validity of the presumption and onto the response itself, often leading to unfair or
misleading conclusions.
Example 1
"Have you stopped cheating on exams?"
This question presumes that the respondent has cheated on exams in the past, regardless of their
answer. A "yes" response implies prior cheating, while a "no" response suggests ongoing
dishonesty. The question forces the respondent into a corner where they appear guilty regardless
of their reply. To avoid this fallacy, one should challenge the embedded assumption by stating, "I
have never cheated on exams."
Example 2
"Why do you always prioritize work over your family?"
This question presupposes that the respondent consistently prioritizes work over their family,
potentially framing them unfairly. Answering this question without addressing the presumption
might inadvertently validate the assumption. A more constructive response would involve
rejecting the premise: "I do not always prioritize work over my family, and I strive to balance
both effectively."
3
Complex questions are particularly problematic in debates, interviews, and legal proceedings,
where they can undermine the credibility of a person without providing substantive evidence.
Recognizing and addressing these fallacies is essential for fair and logical discourse.
[Link] Dichotomy
Definition and Nature
A false dichotomy, or false dilemma, is a logical fallacy that occurs when only two options are
presented as the only possible choices, ignoring other viable alternatives. This oversimplification
often distorts reality by framing complex issues in binary terms. By doing so, it forces
individuals to choose between extremes, excluding more nuanced or reasonable possibilities.
The fallacy arises when a situation is artificially reduced to an either/or choice. This can lead to
hasty decisions or erroneous conclusions, as it fails to account for the spectrum of options or
perspectives that might exist. False dichotomies are frequently employed in persuasive rhetoric,
where they are used to manipulate opinions by creating a sense of urgency or inevitability.
Example 1
"You’re either with us or against us."
This statement creates a false dichotomy by excluding the possibility of neutrality or nuanced
positions. It assumes that there are only two sides to the issue, ignoring the fact that someone
might agree with certain aspects of one side while disagreeing with others. By oversimplifying
the situation, this argument pressures individuals to align with one extreme.
Example 2
"Either you eat junk food, or you’ll starve."
This dichotomy ignores the existence of healthier food options, making it a false choice. The
argument frames the decision as a binary one, disregarding the broad range of nutritious
alternatives available. Such reasoning can mislead individuals into believing that their options
are more limited than they actually are.
False dichotomies are particularly common in political discourse and marketing, where they are
used to polarize opinions or create a sense of exclusivity. Identifying and challenging these
fallacies is crucial for fostering critical thinking and avoiding oversimplified conclusions.
4
[Link] Evidence
Definition and Nature
The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when relevant information is intentionally omitted to
favor a particular conclusion. By selectively presenting only the data that supports a specific
argument, this fallacy distorts reality and misleads the audience. Suppressed evidence
undermines the integrity of the argument by hiding counterexamples, alternative explanations, or
critical details that might weaken the conclusion.
This fallacy is particularly insidious because it relies on the audience's trust in the presenter’s
thoroughness and honesty. When key facts are withheld, the argument may appear more
compelling than it truly is. Recognizing this fallacy requires critical scrutiny of the information
presented and a willingness to question whether all relevant evidence has been considered.
Example 1
"This medication is effective because 90% of patients improved after taking it."
This statement suppresses evidence of adverse side effects or the fact that the study may lack a
control group. While the statistic seems impressive, it does not provide a complete picture of the
medication’s efficacy and safety. By omitting critical information, the argument misleads the
audience into overestimating the benefits of the medication.
Example 2
"Our company is thriving because sales have doubled this year."
This claim might suppress evidence that profits have decreased due to increased costs,
misleading the audience about the company’s overall financial health. By focusing solely on the
positive aspect of increased sales, the argument presents an incomplete and potentially deceptive
narrative.
Suppressed evidence is often encountered in advertising, political campaigns, and advocacy,
where it is used to create a favorable impression while concealing inconvenient truths
5
Conclusion
In examining the fallacies of presumption, we gain deeper insight into how hidden assumptions
can skew our reasoning and lead to flawed arguments. These fallacies often appear subtle at first
glance but can have a profound impact on the quality of discourse. Understanding each one helps
us not only in identifying weaknesses in arguments but also in honing our own critical thinking
skills to engage in more reasoned and informed debates.
Begging the question, as discussed, involves circular reasoning where the conclusion is assumed
within the premises. This fallacy is particularly insidious because it makes an argument appear
valid when, in reality, it is simply restating the same idea without providing any true support for
it. By relying on circular reasoning, the argument closes itself off to further scrutiny and
dismisses any need for evidence. When we encounter such reasoning, we must be able to
recognize that it is an empty argument and seek further evidence or justification for the claims
made.
On the other hand, complex questions manipulate through loaded premises. By framing a
question in such a way that it presupposes an unproven claim, the questioner creates an unfair
situation where the respondent is forced to either accept or reject a premise they might not have
agreed with otherwise. This tactic serves to control the conversation and limit the freedom of the
person being questioned. Recognizing complex questions is crucial because it helps us challenge
the underlying assumptions being presented and forces a more open and fair examination of the
issues at hand.
False dichotomies oversimplify situations by presenting two extreme options and ignoring any
middle ground or alternative solutions. This reductionist approach is misleading because it
pressures individuals into making a binary choice when in fact the situation may involve a wide
range of possibilities. It discourages nuanced thinking and promotes divisive views that do not
reflect the complexity of reality. Identifying a false dichotomy helps us resist being manipulated
into a false choice and encourages us to consider a broader spectrum of options and perspectives.
Finally, suppressed evidence distorts reality by omission. By leaving out crucial facts that
would undermine or weaken an argument, this fallacy creates a biased presentation of the truth.
Whether intentional or unintentional, withholding evidence misleads the audience into forming
conclusions that are not supported by the full set of available information. This tactic often seeks
to present an argument as stronger or more convincing than it truly is. A critical thinker must
learn to scrutinize arguments carefully, question what is not being said, and seek out all relevant
evidence to ensure a balanced and accurate understanding of the issue.
In conclusion, recognizing these fallacies—begging the question, complex questions, false
dichotomies, and suppressed evidence—is essential for engaging in logical discourse and
practicing critical analysis. By being aware of these flawed reasoning patterns, we become more
adept at identifying misleading arguments and, in turn, strengthen our ability to engage in fair,
informed, and rational discussions. Avoiding these fallacies enhances the quality of our
reasoning and supports a more rigorous and thoughtful examination of the ideas and claims
presented to us.
6
References
1. Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logic (14th ed.). Pearson
Education.
2. Hurley, P. J. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Logic (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
3. Walton, D. N. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
