Formal and Informal Fallacies proposition.

Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might

A Formal Fallacy is a type of argument the logical form of which is not validating, propose:
that is, there are arguments of that form that are not valid. Formal Fallacy is the If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F
most general fallacy for fallacious arguments that are not formally valid, and a for this course.
given argument will usually commit a more specific formal fallacy. A given I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.
fallacious argument would be classified as a Formal Fallacy only if it could not be Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.
given a more specific classification.
It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could
In modern systems of formal logic there are usually an infinite number of argument neverthelss be false. Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly
forms that are not validating. For this reason, to count as a formal fallacy, a non- invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to
validating form of argument needs at least one of the following additional pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.
characteristics:
It is deceptive and likely to be committed, usually by having a logical form a.2 Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
that is similar to and liable to be confused with a validating form of argument. Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the
The fallacies of propositional logic are of this type. unfortunate consequences that will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for
It is part of a system of rules such that any argument of a type which the rules whom we would then feel sorry.
can be applied to, and which commits no fallacy, thereby breaks no rules. I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my
Syllogistic fallacies are of this type. children.
If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive
The distinction between a Formal and an Informal Fallacy is that a formal fallacy to work.
is based solely on logical form, and an informal fallacy takes into account the non- If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to
logical content of the argument. This roughly parallels the distinction death.
between deductive and non-deductive modes of reasoning. Typically, formal Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.
fallacies are committed by deductive arguments, whereas informal fallacies occur in
arguments that could be at best inductively strong. However, there are exceptions to Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket)
this pattern, for instance Begging the Question. even if the premises are all true, so the argument is fallacious.

Types of Informal Fallacies a. 3 Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)

a. Fallacies of Relevance - The premises may be psychologically but not In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged
logically relevant to the conclusion. Logically relevant premises contribute language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its
to our ability to see that the conclusion is true. In this sense we have reason conclusion:
to believe that the conclusion is true. Psychologically relevant premises As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the
may give us some reason to believe the conclusion is true but not because Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-
they help us see that the conclusion is true. fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of
concern for children.
a.1 Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.
In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down
unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered
The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse a.6 Appeal to Ignorance (argumentatum ad ignoratiam)
strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an
occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion. opponent can prove otherwise. Thus, for example:
No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of
a.4 Appeal to Authority (argumentatum ad verecundiam) Jupiter.
Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.
connection between the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who
asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority, the opinion of someone famous or But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure
accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.
conclusion. Thus, for example:
Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects. a.7 Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)
Therefore, spiders are insects. Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a
proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely
As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true different conclusion.
because some individual (however talented or successful) happens to believe it. All children should have ample attention from their parents.
Even in areas where they have some special knowledge or skill, expert authorities Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.
could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive evidence but never Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.
as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.
Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally,
a.5 Ad Hominem Argument but do not secure the truth of a conclusion focused on women alone and not on men.
The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominemargument, in which Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may succeed in distracting its audience
we are encouraged to reject a proposition because it is the stated opinion of from the point that is really at issue.
someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can happen in several different
ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who a.8 Tu Quoque
believes it to be true: This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because
Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is
21. inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
But we all know that Harold . . . Person A makes claim X.
. . . dresses funny and smells bad. or Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth
. . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or of claim X.
. . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 or Therefore X is false.
. . . doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.
Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18. The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim
he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true -
In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with
truth of a conclusion for no better reason than that someone believes its opposite. his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his
But the proposition that person believes can be true (and the intended conclusion claims are false.
false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent
beliefs or shares a common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth. a.9 Argumentatum ad Antiquitatem
Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad with a false (or at least unwarranted) assumption, and so fail to establish their
antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which someone conclusion.
proclaims his or her accuracy by noting that "this is how it's always been done."
Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way." b.1. Accident
The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a
An assumption behind this argument is that whatever reason led to the old methods general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual
of thinking is still valid today. If circumstances have changed, this may be a false or atypical in some way.
assumption. Moreover, the "old" method may never have been proven correct. Also, Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
the argument takes for granted that status quo is desired, which may or may not be Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
correct. Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

a.10 Argumentatum ad Terrorem As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion;
The logical fallacy of appeal to fear occurs when someone uses fear to coerce but then, a universal statement that "Every woman earns less than any man." would
someone into accepting some statement as true. There are ways that fear is used to obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of
persuade that are not good. Sometimes, this appeal to fear is connected with room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.
ultimatum. Scripture tells us that God has not given us a spirit of fear. John the
Baptist wouldnt accept the Pharisees because they were simply trying to avoid the b.2 Converse Accident
wrath of God but didnt truly want to serve Him. When fear, not based on evidence The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is unusual or
or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, atypical in some way, and then errs by deriving from this case the truth of a general
proposition, or conclusion. rule.
Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.
If you dont accept X as true, something terrible will happen to you. Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.
Therefore, X must be true.
It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of
a.11 Argumentatum ad Nauseam such a general principle. Since it's easy for this conclusion to be false even though
Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better the premise is true, the argument is unreliable.
supporting evidence.
b.3 False Cause
That movie, Kill, Blood, Gore deserves the Oscar for best picture. There are The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connectionsimply because
other good movies, but not like that one. Others may deserve an honorable events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety)
mention, but not the Oscar, because Kill, Blood, Gore deserves the Oscar. temporal succession.
The moon was full on Thursday evening.
That movie, Kill, Blood, Gore deserves the Oscar for best picture. There are On Friday morning I overslept.
other good movies, but not like that one. Others may deserve an honorable Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.
mention, but not the Oscar, because Kill, Blood, Gore deserves the Oscar.
Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that
b. Fallacies of Presumption a causal relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly are not enough.
Fallacies of presumption are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors,
but are nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of presumption begin b.4 Begging the Question (petitio principii)
Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of c. Fallacies of Ambiguity
the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our
or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this: previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the
All dogs are mammals. imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has
All mammals have hair. two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions
Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young. included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ
But all animals that bear live young are mammals. exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a
Therefore, all dogs are mammals. confusion of two or more different senses.

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an c.1 Equivocation
argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its
the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its
argument doesn't really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it meanings in a second proposition.
unless we have already granted that. Really exciting novels are rare.
But rare books are expensive.
b.5 Complex Question Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive.
The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by
including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered: Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument,
Have you tried to stop watching too much television? so the link they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious. In
If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television. its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability of otherwise
If not, then you must still be watching too much television. valid deductive arguments.
Therefore, you watch too much television.
c.2 Amphiboly
In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the previous An amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the
fallacy. We would not willingly agree to the first premise unless we already grammatical construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.
accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove. A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging
through the campus in his pickup truck.
b.6 Non Sequitur Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.
When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal
reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could be
adds very little to support to the conclusion interpreted in different ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious inference to the
conclusion.
People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having
sand floors in homes would be a great idea! c.3 Accent
The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or
As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from written emphasis. Thus, for example:
the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.
they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.
shouldnt flood their houses.
Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy Ocelots are now dying out.
stress on the last word seems to imply the truth of the conclusion. Sparky is an ocelot.
Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.
c.4 Composition
The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not
feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual members.
possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).
Every course I took in college was well-organized. Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly
Therefore, my college education was well-organized. applies a general rule to an atypical specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health
problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor health"). The
Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly
whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective. said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of

Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly c.6 Vicious Abstraction
generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well- The removal of a statement from its context, thereby changing the meaning of an
organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of argument, is known as the fallacy of vicious abstraction.
composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each
and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the e.g. "St. Paul said, 'Money is the root of all evil.'" ("The love of money is the root of
whole class. all evil")

c.5 Division
Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some
feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of
its individual members (or parts).