PRINCIPLES OF REASONING PH: 151 26 June 2020
Fallacy of Presumption
The fallacy of presumption is "any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a
tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false." Most often, the premises in
such arguments are relevant to the conclusion, but that relevance is offered by
assumptions that are neither stated nor defended. In most instances, the assumptions
are hidden in such a way that their untenability hardly gets noticed. In other words,
the fallacy of presumption occurs when the conclusion is bestowed on unwarranted
assumptions.
1. Fallacy of Accident
The fallacy of accident is an informal fallacy in which a generalization is applied
to individual cases that it does not govern. In other words, the fallacy of accident
occurs when a general rule is applied to an exception. I most cases, the general
principle or rule stated may be correct, but the error happens in its application. Paying
attention to the details and context would generally help us avoid the fallacy of
accident. The fallacy of accident is the opposite of hasty generalization. In hasty
generalization or converse accident, we barge from particular incidents to a universal
generalization. On the contrary, in the fallacy of accident, we move carelessly and
unjustifiably from a general principle to a specific case.
Examples.
1. "Birds can fly. Penguin is a bird, and hence Penguins can fly."
Explanation: Penguins are an exception, and the general principle that birds
can flu does not apply to Penguins.
2. "I am aware that it is quite a popular American notion that we are all born
free and equal. … Men are not born free. They are born bound and limited by a
thousand conditions. They are not born equal. … [T]here are not only these
differences of natural ability with which we start in life, but there is the difference
which comes from the development of these faculties, the acquired training."
The fallacy of accident in this example is the mistake of confusing the implicit
meaning of equal rights and opportunities of all individuals in the general premise
with equal abilities and equality of outcomes of individuals in the particular
conclusion. [from https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/accident.html]
1
PRINCIPLES OF REASONING PH: 151 26 June 2020
2. Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)
An informal fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the
truth of some conclusion buried in that question.
Explanation: "A question that has a presupposition built-in, which implies
something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.
It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not
detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact."
Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies
Examples.
1. Have you stoped doing malpractice exams?
If answered yes, the above question will help us conclude that the person
answered has been doing malpractice in the exams. If answered no, one could
conclude that the person who answered is performing malpractice in the exams. 2. "If
God did not create the universe, who did?
Explanation: The presupposition is that the universe was "created". Some
nervous debate neophyte might blurt out, "I don't know who did, but it wasn't God!",
falling right into the trap” (Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over
300 Logical Fallacies)
3. Begging the question (Petitio Principii)
Begging the question is an informal fallacy in which the conclusion of an
argument is stated or assumed in any one of the premises. It is also known as "circular
argument" and petitio principii. Do note that begging the question does not mean
raising the question.
Description.
"A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises,
which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful
information is being shared (Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of
Over 300 Logical Fallacies).
Examples.
1. "Pvt. Joe Bowers: What are these electrolytes? Do you even know?
2
PRINCIPLES OF REASONING PH: 151 26 June 2020
Secretary of State: They're... what they use to make Brawndo!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: But why do they use them to make"
"Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] Because Brawndo's got
electrolytes.
Explanation: This example is from a movie, Idiocracy, where Pvt. Joe Bowers
(played by Luke Wilson) is dealing with a bunch of not-very-smart guys from the
future. Joe is not getting any useful information about electrolytes, no matter how
hard he tries (Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical
Fallacies)
2. "Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder.
Murder is illegal. So, abortion should be illegal.
Explanation: The conclusion of the argument is entailed in its premises. If one
assumes that abortion is murder, then it follows that abortion should be illegal because
murder is illegal. Thus, the arguer is assuming abortion should be illegal (the
conclusion) by assuming that it is murder." Robert Carroll. The Critical Thinker's
Dictionary: Biases, Fallacies, and Illusions and What You Can Do About Them.
