Logic Notes 9 10

Logic and Critical Thinking
CHAPTER 9
THE LOGICAL FALLACIES
Prepared by Joerald A. Pepito

Instructor
Desired Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to…
1. critically analyze any philosophical claim.
2. Train students to verify the truthfulness of any claim.
What is a Fallacy?
 A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in

reasoning. •
Fallacies can be divided into two general types:
A. Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion
B. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Evidence Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant
to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the
conclusion.
The Fallacies of Relevance

A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it provides at least
some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false.
There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or

irrelevant to another:
1. A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides
at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true.
2. A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides
at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is false.
3. A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides
no reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or
false.
DIFFENT KINDS OF FALLACIES of RELEVANCE

A. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)
 When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim by attacking the

person’s character rather than examining the worth of the argument
or claim itself.
Example:
Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis on music in our F2F
classes to facilitate creativity. But Doogie is a selfish big headed fool.
I absolutely refuse to listen to him.
1. X is a bad person. 2. Therefore X's argument must be bad. Pattern
B. Attacking the Motive
 When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a

particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the
argument or claim itself.
Example:
Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But
Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll make a
fortune if his company is picked to build the new campus. Obviously,
Trump’s argument is a lot of self- serving nonsense.
1. X has biased or has questionable motives. 2. Therefore, X’s

arguments or claim should be rejected
C. Look Who’s Talking

 When an arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim because
that person is a hypocrite
Example:
Doctor: You should quite smoking. Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit
when you do, Dr. Smokestack! Look Who’s Talking
1. X fails to follow his or her own advice. 2. Therefore, X’s claim or

argument should be rejected.
D. Two Wrongs Make a Right

 When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that
some other act is just as bad or worse.
Example:
1. “I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz. Half the
class cheats on his quiz.”
2. 2. “Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”
1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 2. Therefore my
wrongful act is justified. Pattern
E. Scare Tactics
 When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat

is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.
Example:
Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful
rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed
forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.
Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often causes us to

think and behave irrationally
F. Appeal to Emotion (Ad Populum)
 Appeal to Pity When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or

compassion, where such feelings, however understandable, are not
relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.
Example:
Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all
my quizzes and assignments. First my cat died. Then my girlfriend
told me she has found someone else. With all I went through this
semester, I don’t think I really deserve an F. Any chance you might
cut me some slack and change my grade to a C or a D?
1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. 2. Therefore claim C
is true. Pattern
G. Bandwagon Argument
 Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure) When an arguer appeals to a

person’s desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than to
logically relevant reasons or evidence.
Example:
All the really cool Taylors students smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you
should, too.
1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X. 2. Therefore,
you should believe or do X. Pattern
H. Straw Man
 When an arguer misrepresents another person’s position to make it
easier to attack.
Example:
Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets:  Suzie:
"We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.“  Singh:
"Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean
them out everyday?"  Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them
out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."
1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is
a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. Pattern
I. Red Herring
 When an arguer tries to side track his audience by raising an
irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original issue has been
effectively settled by the irrelevant diversion.
Example:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the
graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we
are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."
1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the

guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not
relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned. Pattern
J. Equivocation
 When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two (or more)
different senses. Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot
because they often appear valid, but they aren’t. Remember
Example:
In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed almost very night.
To be bombed is to be intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940,
Londoners were intoxicated almost every night.
K. Begging the Question

 When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason) the very
thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.
 It occurs when the conclusion is assumed to be true in arguments
premises
Example:
I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say
whatever I please.
DIFFENT KINDS OF FALLACIES of Insufficient Evidence

A. False Authority
 Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.
Example:
My dentist told me that aliens built the lost city of Atlantis. So, it’s
reasonable to believe that aliens did build the lost city of Atlantis.
Things to remember
1. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?
2. Is the source biased?
3. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?
4. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
5. Has the source been cited correctly? 6. Does the source’s claim
conflict with expert opinion? 7. Can the source’s claim be settled
by an appeal to expert opinion? 8. Is the claim highly improbable
on its face?
B. Appeal to Ignorance
 Claiming that something is true because no one has proven it false or

vice versa.
Example:
Yoda must exist. No one has proved that he doesn’t exist
“Not proven, therefore false” If such reasoning were allowed, we

could prove almost any conclusion. Remember Agree I do!
C. False Dilemma
 Posing a false either/or choice. Fallacy of false dilemma can involve

more than two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a
conditional (if-then) statement.
Example
The choice in this MPP election is clear: Either we elect Zaki as

our next president, or we watch our MPP unity slide into anarchy
and frustration. Clearly, we don’t want that to happen. Therefore,
we should elect Zaki as our next president.
D. Loaded Question
 Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted

presupposition. To respond to a loaded question effectively, one must
distinguish the different questions being asked and respond to each
individually.
Example: Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard? Ali: Yes.
Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser.
E. False Cause
 Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of

something else. 1. A and B are associated on a regular basis. 2.
Therefore A is the cause of B. Pattern
Example: Effa gets a chain letter that threatens her with dire
consequences if she breaks the chain. She laughs at it and throws it
in the garbage. On her way to work she slips and breaks her arm.
When she gets back from the hospital she sends out 200 copies of
the chain letter, hoping to avoid further accidents.
F. Slippery Slope
 Claiming, without sufficient evidence,that a seemingly harmless

action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome.
Examples: • “The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other

countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then
send in thousands to die."
The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is

permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D. 2. The
arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be
permitted. 3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will
actually lead to D.
G. Weak Analogy
 Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.

Example:
Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for a test drive. Why
then shouldn’t two mature UiTM students live together before they
decide whether or not to get married?
Things to remember:
1. List all important similarities between the two cases.
2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases.
3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are more
important.
CHAPTER 10
APPROACHES IN DOING PHILOSOPHY
Four Approaches in Doing Philosophy
1. Analytical Approach
2. Speculative Approach
3. Reductionist Approach
4. Holistic Approach
A. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Two fundamental tasks of Analytic philosophy
1. The analysis and definition of our fundamental concepts
2. The clear and resolute criticism of our beliefs
1. The analysis and definition of our fundamental concepts

Example:
What came first? The chicken or the Egg?
2. The clear and resolute criticism of our beliefs
 These are beliefs which are often based on our prejudices.
Ex. Our bias against Muslims.
Main Goal: Conceptual Clarity > using Logical Reasoning

B. SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY
 Tries to find an underlying explanation or general principle that could
explain reality in its entirety.
Ex. The attempt of the pre-Socratic philosophers to explain reality
Main Goal: To reach some general conclusions as to the nature of

the universe and its existence in reality.> Using MetaPhysics
C. REDUCTIONIST APPROACH
 A reductionist approach of doing philosophy refers to understanding
of complex ideas by reducing them to their parts or individual
constituents.
Rene Descartes
• He likened the world to a machine with pieces working like a
clockwork mechanism
• He argued that the machine can only be understood if an individual
would take its pieces apart and study its individual components
before putting it back together to understand the bigger picture
Main Goal: Breaking down , to simplify things>Using Deductive
approach
D. HOLISTIC APPROACH
• Works on the assumption that all properties in a given system cannot

be broken down by its component parts alone, but rather the system
as a whole entity decides how the individual parts behave.
• Holism is the idea that “something can be more than the sum of its
parts:”
• more specifically to the concept of reality
Main Goal: relationship between the parts (interconnectedness)

>Inductive Approach

Logic Notes 9 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic Notes 9 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic Notes 9 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic and Critical Thinking

Prepared by Joerald A. Pepito

Desired Learning Outcomes

 A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in

The Fallacies of Relevance

There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or

DIFFENT KINDS OF FALLACIES of RELEVANCE

 When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim by attacking the

B. Attacking the Motive

 When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a

1. X has biased or has questionable motives. 2. Therefore, X’s

C. Look Who’s Talking

1. X fails to follow his or her own advice. 2. Therefore, X’s claim or

D. Two Wrongs Make a Right

 When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat

Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often causes us to

F. Appeal to Emotion (Ad Populum)

 Appeal to Pity When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or

 Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure) When an arguer appeals to a

1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the

K. Begging the Question

DIFFENT KINDS OF FALLACIES of Insufficient Evidence

 Claiming that something is true because no one has proven it false or

“Not proven, therefore false” If such reasoning were allowed, we

 Posing a false either/or choice. Fallacy of false dilemma can involve

The choice in this MPP election is clear: Either we elect Zaki as

 Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted

 Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of

 Claiming, without sufficient evidence,that a seemingly harmless

Examples: • “The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other

The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is

 Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.

Four Approaches in Doing Philosophy

1. The analysis and definition of our fundamental concepts

Main Goal: Conceptual Clarity > using Logical Reasoning

Ex. The attempt of the pre-Socratic philosophers to explain reality

Main Goal: To reach some general conclusions as to the nature of

• Works on the assumption that all properties in a given system cannot

Main Goal: relationship between the parts (interconnectedness)

You might also like