CHAPTER FIVE

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Chapter Outlines:
Defining what a fallacy is in general.

Differentiating formal and informal fallacies.

Identifying the defects of fallacious arguments.
Recognizing the major categories and varieties of
informal fallacies.
Identifying the particular fallacy committed in a certain
argument.
 The Meaning of Fallacy

What is a fallacy?
 A logical fallacy is an error in judgment or a faulty argument.
 In other words, fallacy is an argument that is logically bad but often
psychologically persuasive.
 The term fallacies comes from the Latin words “fallo”, “fallacia”
which means deception, trick or cheating.
 People often use logical fallacies to trick and persuade others to believe
a certain conclusion.
 Fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually they involve
either a mistake in reasoning or the creations of some illusion that make
a bad argument appear good (or both).
 Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if they
do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of
argument.
 Types of Fallacies
 Fallacies are usually divided into two groups:
o formal and,
o informal.

A. Formal Fallacy
 A fallacy committed due to a structural defect of argument is
known as a formal fallacy.
 Because the problem that causes them is a structural defect,
formal fallacies may be identified through mere inspection of the
form or structure of an argument.
 Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that have
identifiable forms, such as categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and
hypothetical syllogisms
 The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
 This argument has the following form:
All A are B.
All C are B.
-------------------
All A are C.
 Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument is invalid.
 The fact that A, B, and C stand respectively for ‘tigers,’ ‘animals,’ and ‘is
irrelevant in detecting the fallacy.
 The problem may be traced to the second premise.
 Cont…
 Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a
hypothetical syllogism:
If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.
 This argument has the following form:
If A, then B.
B.
----------------
A.
 This type of fallacy is called affirming the consequent. The name
comes from the vocabulary of “if, then” statements: the “if” part
is called the antecedent; the “then” part is called the consequent.
 Cont…
 A second common formal fallacy is called Denying the Antecedent.
 Its structure looks like this (with the two premises and conclusion
arranged in any order):
If A, then B
Not-A
Thus, not-B
 Example:
If it’s raining outside, then the ground is wet.
It’s not raining outside.
Thus, the ground is not wet
 Generally, there are a number of formal fallacies, but two are quite
common. These are:
Affirming the consequent
Denying the Antecedent
 B. Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are inductive arguments that are commonly

thought to be strong when they are actually weak.


Is a fallacy, which is committed due to a defect in the very content of

an argument(reasoning process), other than in its structure/ form.


It uses correct logical structure, but incorrect premises.


Consider the following example:

All factories are plants.

All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.

Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

 Typologies of Informal Fallacy
 Informal fallacies are categorized into five groups. These are:

1. fallacies of relevance,

2. fallacies of weak induction,

3. fallacies of presumption,
4. fallacies of ambiguity, and
5. fallacies of grammatical analogy.
 Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of relevance are those, (except missing the point) which are
committed chiefly due to a provision premises that are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion.
The fallacy of missing the point is , however, committed due to an
irrelevant conclusion. The followings are fallacies of relevance:
1. Appeal to force,
2. Appeal to pity,
3. Appeal to people,
4. Argument against the person,
5. Accident,
6. Straw man,
7. Missing the point, and
8. Red Herring.
 1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal
to the “Stick”)
 Occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells
that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to
him if he does not accept the conclusion.
 This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or
psychological well- being of the listener.
 But this threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the
conclusion even though it seems psychologically relevant.
Example
1. Ethiopia is the best country that has its own precious cultures. If you
don’t accept this, I will blow your head by this pestle. (Physical threat)
2. Priest to unbeliever: you must believe that God exists. After all, if you
do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of
hell.
3. You should accept what I say, unless you know that I am brother of
your wife; you will miss her one day. (Physiological threat)
 2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
 It is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in
one‘s audience when the statements that evoke the pity /sympathy
are logically unrelated to the conclusion.
 We support a conclusion on the basis of sentiment rather than fact.
Example
1. Student to instructor: I know that I have not done very good work
in your course, Instructor, but if you don’t give me a C+ grade,
there is no way that I can get into graduation. Graduation means a
lot to me. After all, I come from a distant area and poor family for
whom I am the only child. Certainly, I deserve C+ from your
course.
2. The Headship position in the department of accounting should be
given to Mr. Oumer Abdulla. Oumer has six hungry children to
feed and his wife desperately needs an operation to save her
eyesight.
 3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

We use mob appeal when we appeal to certain emotions–the desire to be admired
or to be accepted of a group of people to justify a certain conclusion.
In this argument two approaches are involved, direct and indirect.
a) Direct approach:

Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, motivates the emotions
and enthusiasm of the crowed to win acceptance for his conclusion.

The objective is to rouse a kind of mob mentality by referring to mass belief, mass
commitment or mass sentiment.
Example:

Why is our basketball team going to win the State Championship this weekend?
Because we have the greatest fans in the state’.
(The speaker wants the crowd to feel as though they belong to an important group;
but state championships are won by players, not by fans.)
 b) Indirect approach
 The arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowed as a whole
but to one or more individuals separately, focusing upon some
aspect of their relationship to the crowd.
 The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the
bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, and the appeal to
snobbery.
I. Bandwagon fallacy
 Is a kind of fallacy that commonly appeals to the desire of
individuals to be considered as part of the group or community in
which they are living.
 Cont…
 Is based on the assumption that because many people or group do or
accept X, and then X is good or true.
 Here is an example of the band wagon argument:
1) Of course you want to buy signal tooth paste. Why, 90% of
Ethiopian brushes with it.
2) “You should buy the latest Toshiba laptop. Everyone is buying it.”
3) “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”.
 The idea is that you will be left behind or left out of the group if you
do not use the product or accept child circumcision.
 II. Appeal to Vanity
 It 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.
 Therefore, the argument associates the conclusion with someone who is
admired.
Example
1. Who is going to buy these new fashion jeans, which is the first choice of
famous artist Teddy Afro? The message is that you will be admired and
respected just like Teddy.
2. BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank Lampard, wearing Addidas
shoe, and says: Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only
by few respected celebrities! ADIDDAS SHOE!!!
 The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too, will be admired
and respected, just like the famous footballer, Frank Lampard.
 III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy
 Snob means a person who admires people in higher classes too much
and has no respect for people in the lower classes or a person who
thinks individuals from higher social classes are much better than other
people because they like things many people do not like.
 Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as
superior to others.
 This fallacy appeal individuals and their desires to be regarded as
different and better. Consider the following argument.
1) 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.
2) Do you want to flight to Canada? Ethiopia Dreamliner is a waiting to
you and you would better buy first level ticket. But, note that
Dreamliner is only for respected customers and distinguished
personalities. (Hurry up!)
3) The best way to spend your leisure time is to play football. That is how
all of society’s elite spend their leisure time.
 4. Argument against the Person
 Is a type of relevance fallacy which 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.
 This type of argument has the following form:

1. Person A make’s claim X.

2. Person B makes’ an attack on person A.

3. Therefore, A’s claim is false.
 The argument against the person occurs in three forms:

1. The ad hominem abusive,

2. The ad hominem circumstantial, and
3. The you too (tu quoque).
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: A‟s argument should not be accepted.
 Consider the following example.
1. In defending animal rights, Mr. Abebe argues that the government should
legislate a minimum legal requirement to any individuals or groups who
want to farm animals. He argues that this is the first step in avoiding
unnecessary pain on animals and protecting them from abuse. But we
should not accept his argument because he is a divorced drunk person who
is unable to protect even his own family.
 The conclusion of the argument says, we should reject the idea of legislating
a minimum legal requirement to protect animals. But what reason is offered
to support the conclusion? That Abebe is a drunk and divorced person is the
only reason given.
 But it is impossible to conclude that we should reject legislation a minimum
legal requirement to protect animals from the idea that Abebe is a drunk and
divorced person. This is just an explicit and direct personal attack.
 Cont…
1. Her idea that environmental protection needs to be given priority
is non- sense. I don’t have a problem to find evidence against her
opinion. Just look at her face, she looks like a hungry dog. How
this noble idea can be suggested by such an awful faced woman.
2. How can you describe that Mr. X was a great football player. He
was anti-Semite. He abandoned his first wife. He sponged off his
friends. He was an egomaniac. (The speaker is attacking X
character to undermine his accomplishments on the football field.
X may still be a good football player even if he has a bad
character.)
 II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy
 It begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of
heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to
discredit the opponent‘s argument by alluding to certain circumstances
that affect the opponent(such as the person’s religion, political affiliation,
ethnic background, position or interest) that affect the opponent.
 This fallacy has the following form:

a. Person A make’s claim X.

b. Person B make’s an attack on A’s circumstances because it is in A’s

interest to claim X.

c. Therefore, claim X is false.

 Cont…
Consider the following example:

1) Dr. Tewodros advocates a policy of increasing financial

spending for higher education. But that is not innocent
advocacy, for the reason that he is a college professor and
would benefit financially from such a policy.
2) Einstein, who advanced the theory or special relativity, was a Jew.
According to the Nazis, it followed that Einstein’s theory was false.
Explanation: Einstein’s religious, racial, or ethnic back ground and
circumstances have no bearing on the acceptability of his scientific
theories.
 III. You too Fallacy
 This fallacy committed when we say that a person’s claim is false
because it’s inconsistent or contrary with something else the
person has said or done before.
 This fallacy has the following form:
 ‘How do you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or
have done) X yourself.’
See the following example:
o Child to father: your argument that I should stop stealing candy
from the corner store is no good. You told me yourself just a week
ago that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid.
o Doctor: “I see abnormalities on your breathing and heartbeat. You
should stop smoking cigarettes.
o Patient: “What do you mean doctor? I have seen you by my
necked eyes that the other day that you too were smoking. So, your
advice is not correct.
 5. 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.
Consider the following example:
1) Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Mr. x should not be arrested for his speech that incited
the riot last week.
2) It’s wrong to stick people with knives. Thus it’s wrong for that
surgeon to stick a scalpel into patient to remove his ruptured
appendix.
3) We should not speed in cars on city streets. Thus, I should not
break the speed limit at 2:00 a.m. on this deserted street to get my
bleeding friend to the Hospital’s Emergency Room.
 6. Straw Man
 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.
Example:
1. Dr. Kebede has just argued against affirmative action for women.
It seems what he is saying is that women should stay out of the
work place altogether. Just keep them barefoot and pregnant. That
is what Dr. Kebede wants. Well! I think we all smart enough to
reject his argument.
 Cont…
1. Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the
country and thus it should be replaced by geographical federalism.
But we should not accept his proposal. He just wants to take the
country back to the previous regime. Geographical federalism was
the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical regime.
We do not want to go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr.
Belay‟s proposal.
 Cont…
 The above argument involves two persons: For example, in the
second example, Mr. Belay argues for geographical federalism and
his critic opposing the view.
 This critics show that the critic do not refute or oppose the idea of
geographical federalism. Rather he first misrepresented geographical
federalism as going back to the past and then he criticizes the past
regime and by doing so he believed the real argument knocked down.
 But he did not criticize the substance of the argument; he criticizes
distorted idea which do not represent his opponent. This is an
example of how straw man fallacy is committed.
 7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

 Ignoratio elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.”

 The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own

premises and draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely.
 The fallacy of missing the point occurs when the premises of an
argument support an obvious conclusion, but the arguer instead draws
a different conclusion.
 In other words, when someone draws a conclusion, which completely
misses the point, she/he commits missing the point fallacy.

Consider the following examples:

 Cont…
1) Haile G/Silassie has won many cross country championships. He
is still dedicated, hard worker, disciplined, courageous and
determined to win marathon. Therefore, Ethiopians should save
their lives from HIV- AIDS.

2) Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming

rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death
penalty immediately
3) Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our only
alternative is to abolish the system altogether.
 8. Red Herring
 It occurs when the arguer shifts topics or diverts attention from the
central issue introduced.
 In other words, the arguer presents an irrelevant topic to divert
attention from the original issue and shifts attention away from the
argument to another issue.
 So, in identifying red herring one should look carefully for the topic
to be debated, and then attempt to discern if the topic has been
shifted to a distinct topic.
 Sequence:
1) Topic A is being discussed;
2) Topic B is introduced as though it is relevant to Topic A,
but it is not;
3) Topic A is abandoned
 Cont…
 Consider the following argument to understand the point clearly.

1. A factory is accused to be dumping large amounts of pollutants

into a local river, making it unsafe to swim or fish downstream. A
reporter asks the manager about this, and the managers says,
“Well, you know, our company employs dozens of local men and
women, and we’ve been donating to the high school football team
every year. The city taxes we pay support the police and fire
departments in our small town. I’d say that we’re an asset to this
community!”
 The attention is diverted from the original topic into a new topic.
 Cont…
 The company may be doing all these grand things, and it may even
overall be an asset to the community, but the spokesman is avoiding the
issue of whether the company is polluting the river and in that manner
harming the community.
 He changes the subject slightly talks about the company strengths
regarding community effect, and concludes that our company should be
highly praised for the good work it does locally.
Example 2:
o Mother: “Why did you lie to me about where you went last night?”

o Daughter: “You’re always picking on me. Why don’t you ever question
my brother?”
 Fallacies of Weak Induction

 The fallacies of weak induction occur not because the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but because the connection
between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the
conclusion.
 In other words, if premises do not support the conclusion strongly then the
resulting argument will be labeled as Weak Induction.
 The followings are the most important kinds of weak Induction:
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority,
2. Hasty Generalization,
3. False Cause,
4. Weak Analogy,
5. Slippery Slope, and
6. Appeal to Ignorance.
 9. Appeal to Unqualified Authority

 This kind of fallacy is commits when the reliability of the authority

may be reasonably doubtable.
 We support our conclusion by illicitly bringing up the following
sorts of authorities.
 We cite someone who may be famous but who is not an expert in
anything. For example,
 The theory of relativity must be true. Paris Hilton accepts it. (Paris
Hilton is famous; but is she an expert in anything?)
 Cont…

 We cite someone who is an expert but an expert in another area.

For example:
 The famous artists, artist Woriku said that Vera Pasta is the most
nutritious food. So Vera pasta must be the most nutritious food.
 Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in
more complex societies, there is higher level of division of labor
and in less complex societies, there is less division of labor.
 We cite an outdated authority.
 Space and time are absolute. Newton says so. (Newton’s views
are a bit outdated. We are now in the era of Einstein where space
and time are described as relative).
 10) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

 This fallacy occurs when someone argues that because we do not

know that X is true, that gives us reason to believe that X is false,
or, because we do not know that Z is false, that gives us reason to
believe that Z is true. Or
 The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when a person infers that
something does not exist because there is no evidence that it does
exist.
EXAMPLE
 No one has proved that astrology does not work. Therefore it does
work!
 People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive
evidence for the claims that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is the
descendant of King David of Israel and no one has ever succeeded.
Therefore, we must conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not
the descendant of King David of Israel.
 People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims that
Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of King David of
Israel, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is in fact the descendant
of King David of Israel. .
 11. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

 This fallacy occurs when the arguer appeals to what’s known about
a portion of a group and then makes a weak inference to that
claim being true of the whole group.
For example:
 Radio talk show host: “Driving to work I saw three young people
writing graffiti on public walls. The youth today are a bunch of
thugs.”
 Dr. Faris asked ten graduate students on Ethiopian Literature if
they like to read books. All ten said they did. He conclude that all
the students at Wolkite university like to read books.
 12. False Cause Fallacy

 In causal reasoning, we are often trying to establish that

something is the cause of something else.
 It occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion
depends no some imagined causal connection that probably does
not exists, an attempt to suppose that “X” causes “Y” whereas “X”
probably does not cause “Y” at all.
 In short, it occurs when an argument mistakenly attempt to
establish a causal connection.
 Logicians distinguish at least three kinds of False Cause.

A. Non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”)
 This variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of
something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on
something other than mere temporal succession.
For example
 Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of
$100,000.Therefore, the best way to ensure that Samuel will
become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least
$100,000.
 Cont…
B. post hoc (“after this therefore because of this”).
 These examples of False Cause make the point that merely because
action B occurred immediately after action A, it follows that A
caused B.
Example:
1) I broke a mirror yesterday. That’s why I got in a car accident today
2) A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my
ankle. It must be that black cats really are bad luck.
3) Withdrawals have increased substantially since Mr. Tomas started
teaching Logic at WKU; clearly he has driven students away.
 C. False Cause oversimplification.
 The fallacy of oversimplified cause occurs when a person cites a
single event or a set of events as the cause of another event, when
in fact the single event or set of events is not sufficiently robust
enough to account for the event.
 For instance, in Ethiopia, the grades of fresh students in
universities have been dropping for several years. What accounts
for this? Well, during these same years, the average time students
spend on facebook (per day) has increased. So, the cause is
obvious: students are spending much of their time surfing on
facebook when they need to be reading instead.
 13) Slippery Slope Fallacy
 Is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is
undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the
way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all
the way to the bottom.
 The error in slippery slope depends on the chain of consequences.
 It is also called "the Camel's Nose Fallacy" because of the image of a
sheik who let his camel stick its nose into its tent on a cold night.
 The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the
tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its
head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body.
Consider the following example.
 Cont…

 Eg1: Against cultural, social and religious norms of Ethiopia, a

Chinese firm was authorized to run donkey slaughter house in
Bishoftu. But this company should be closed. If donkeys are
continuously slaughtered and exported, then Ethiopian who works
in the abattoir will start to eat donkey meat. Then members of the
family of these workers will be the next to eat donkey meat. This
gradually leads their neighbors and the village to accept the same
practice. Finally, the whole country will follow which in turn leads
to the total collapse of Ethiopian food culture.
 Cont…
 Eg2. We cannot afford to give the WKU staff a pay raise. If we give
them a pay raise, then they will have no incentive to work hard. If
they have no incentive to work hard, they will eventually work less,
and take more vacations. If they take more vacations, we will
eventually not have a functioning university. Since we need a
functioning university, we cannot give the staff a pay raise.
 Eg3: Don’t let your kids play card games. If you let them play Old
Maid, then they’ll want to learn to play poker. Then the next thing
you’ll know, they’ll be compulsive gamblers spending all their time
at the nearest casino.
 14. Weak Analogy

 Analogical arguments compare two things or two groups of things.

 Such arguments point out some relevant similarities between the two
things, and conclude that they are so relevantly similar that what is true
of one is probably true of the other.

 The fallacy of weak analogy occurs in arguments by analogy where one

tries to establish from the fact that A has P and B is like A, that B has P.

 One basic problem with many weak analogies is that there is a

significant and relevant difference between the two things being
compared.

 For instance:
 Cont…
Example.
1. Both Albert Einstein and Aristotle were males, very smart, highly
respected, and wrote books. Einstein believed that nothing travels
faster than the speed of light. Thus Aristotle probably believed
this, too.
 The problem here is that Aristotle, being a 4th century BC Greek
philosopher, did not have the physics or math background to
understand things like the theory of special relativity.
 Cont…
1. The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of
water through a pipe. When water runs downhill through a pipe,
the pressure at the bottom of the hill is greater than it is at the top.
Thus, when electricity flows downhill through a wire, the voltage
should be greater at the bottom of the hill than at the top.
2. Tadesse’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets
excellent gas mileage. Tewabe’s new car is also bright blue and
has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas
mileage, too.
 Fallacies of Presumption

 A good argument is one where the premises provide independent evidence for
the conclusion (i.e., the thing to be proved).
 In this section, we will look at several types of arguments where the premises
do NOT provide INDEPENDENT evidence for the conclusion.
 Each of these fallacies of presumption has premises that assume one of the very
things that is supposed to be proved in the conclusion.
 It Includes:

 Begging the question

 Complex question

 False dichotomy

 Suppressed evidence
 15. Begging the Question
 The fallacy of begging the question occurs when the premises falsely

pretend to give you reasons to believe a conclusion.

We assume as a premise the very conclusion we are trying to prove.

This can occur in one of three ways:
a) Missing Key Premise(Hiding the premise in question):
The controversial premise is left unstated, making it look like you have
reason to believe the conclusion, when in fact the hidden premise is so
controversial that it is likely to be rejected once exposed. For instance:
1.“Obviously, logic should be removed from the curriculum because
it’s a really difficult subject.”

We can re-write this argument as follows:
1. Logic is a difficult subject.
2. Therefore, logic should not be taught
 Cont…
 But, this is a bad argument because it leaves out a crucial premise.
Namely:
1. Logic is a difficult subject.
2. Difficult subjects should not be taught. Left out
3. Therefore, logic should not be taught.
Example2:
 Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that
abortion is morally wrong.
 These arguments begs the question ―How do you know that
abortion is a form of murder?
 These questions indicate that something has been left out of the
original arguments.
 Thus, the argument is missing the premise, ―Abortion is a form of
murder. (Left out)
 b) Conclusion Restates the Premise:
 Begging the question also occurs whenever the conclusion says
basically the same thing as the premise(s).
 This gives the illusion that something has been “proved”, when in
reality it is merely the case that the same thing is being said twice
in a row.
 For instance: “Prostitution is clearly wrong because any case of
selling sex is morally impermissible.”
 This is a bad argument because the conclusion (that prostitution is
wrong) is not really saying anything different than the premise
which “supports” it (that selling sex is wrong).
 It “begs the question” because this “argument” leads us to ask,
“But, what makes selling sex wrong?”
 Why is John a bachelor? Because he is unmarried. (The answer to
this question repeats the same information that appears in the
conclusion
 c) Circular Reasoning:
 Finally, begging the question occurs whenever the argument is “reasons in
a circle”.
 This is when a chain of inferences, or several steps, reasons in such a way
that the last step ends up proving the initial assumption (i.e., the first step).
For instance:
I. “Clearly, the Bible is the word of God. After all, it says in the Bible that it
is the word of God, and God never lies, so the Bible contains only truths
and is the word of God.”
II. Jones: Why is giving alms to the poor the right thing to do?
Smith: Because one is morally obligated to give alms to the poor.
Jones: Why is one morally obligated to give alms to the poor?
Smith: Because it is the right thing to do.
 (Note that we are now back at our starting point we have gone in a circle.)
 16. 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.
Examples:
a) Have you stopped cheating on exams?
b) Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?
c) Are you still proud of yourself being a person having many
girlfriends in campus?
 Let us suppose the respondent answers ‘yes’ to the first question and
‘under the bed’ to the second.
The following arguments emerge:
 You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You
answered “yes.” Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the
past.
 You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed.
You replied “under the bed.” It follows that you were in fact killed
the person.
 Cont…
 On the other hand, let us suppose that the respondent answers “no”
to the first question and “nowhere” to the second.
We then have the following arguments:
 You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You
answered “no.” Therefore, you continue to cheat.
 You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed.
You answered “no where.” It follows that you have destroyed the
corpse.
 Obviously, each of the questions is really two questions:
 Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in the past,
have you stopped now?
 Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed? If you
were killed it, where did you hide it?
 17. False Dichotomy(Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)
 This occurs whenever someone presents two options as if they
were the ONLY two options (though they are not), and then, after
eliminating ONE of them, concludes that the second option must be
true.
Example:
1) Classical democracy is originated either from the Gada System or
from Athens. Classical democracy did not originated from ancient
Athens Thus, it must originate from the Gada System.
2) Either you are going to buy me a new car or I will divorce you.
You do not want me divorce you. Thus, you have to buy me a new
car.
3) Either you have to accept my love request or I will commit
suicide.
 Cont…
 In none of these arguments does the disjunctive premise present
the only alternatives available, but in each case, the arguer tries to
convey that impression.
 For example, in the first argument, the arguer tries to convey the
impression that democracy cannot originates in other places than
Athens or the Gada System and that no other alternatives are
possible. Clearly, however, this is not the case.
 The fallacy of false dichotomy lies in the illusion created by the
arguer that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive and
unlikely alternatives.
 Cont…
 If one of the alternatives in the disjunctive premise is true, then
fallacy is not committed.
 For example, the following argument is valid and sound

Either Abay River is in Ethiopia or it is in South Africa.

River Abay is not in South Africa.

Therefore, River Abay is in Ethiopia.

 18. Suppressed Evidence

 This occurs when an argument purposely leaves out or ignores

relevant evidence because that evidence would cast doubt on the
conclusion being offered.
 Example:

1. “I would be a great employee. You should hire me. I Mr. X

graduated with a degree in business from WKU, I know about all
of the procedures, and I have extensive experience in this line of
work.”
 (Information not provided: “I was fired from my last job for being
a terrible employee”)
 Fallacies of Ambiguity

 The fallacies of ambiguity includes equivocation and amphiboly.

 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.
 When the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning
of an ambiguous word or phrase or on the wrong interpretation of
an ambiguous statement, the argument commits a fallacy of
ambiguity.
 19. The Fallacy of Equivocation
 This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on the fact that using a word in two different senses in the
argument.
 In short, equivocation fallacy commits due to ambiguous word.
Examples:
 Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant.
Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
 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.
 We ought to do what is right. We have a right to eat nothing but
chocolate. Therefore, we ought to eat nothing but chocolate.
 Cont…
 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 argument equivocates on the word “law.”

 In the first premise it means statutory law, and in the second it

means law of nature.
 The third argument uses “right” in two senses. In the first premise
“right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a legally
privileged.
 20. Amphiboly
 The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an
ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this
faulty interpretation.
 The ambiguity usually arises from 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 ambiguity, 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.
 Cont…
Here are some examples:
1. Tewodros told me that he always quarrels with his father when he
is drunk. (Son? Father??)

2. Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows

that Habtom has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
 In the second argument the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous
antecedent; it can refer either to Habtom or Megressa. Perhaps
Habtom told Megressa that Megreesa had made a mistake.
Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical ambiguities.
 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
21. Composition
 The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of
an argument depends on the wrong transference of an attribute
from the parts of something on to the whole(i.e because the parts
have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute
too)
Examples:
1. Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete.
Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.
2. Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk
is invisible.
3. Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both
deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
4. If you like cheese, bread, and tomatoes, then you’ll like pizza.
 22. Division
 The fallacy of division 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).
Examples:
 Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component
elements, sodium and chlorine, are non-poisonous.
 The Royal Society is over 300 years old. General Merid Hussein is
a member of the Royal Society. Therefore, General Merid Hussein
is over 300 years old.
 Cont…

 In each case the attribute, designated respectively by the terms

‘non-poisonous,’ and ‘over 300 years old,’ is illegitimately
transferred from the whole or class onto the parts or members.
 As with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of
transference is not always illegitimate.
 Just as composition can sometimes be confused with hasty
generalization (converse accident), division can sometimes be
confused with accident.
 As with composition, this confusion can occur only when the
‘whole’ is a class.
END OF THE CHAPTER