INFORMAL FALLACIES

Chapter Three: Informal Fallacies

What is fallacy?
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises.
Fallacies can be committed in many ways. Fallacies usually involve either a mistake in reasoning or
the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both).Both deductive and
inductive arguments may contain fallacies. If they contain fallacies, they are either unsound or
uncogent, depending on the kind of argument.
Fallacies are usually divided in to two groups. These are formal and informal. A formal fallacy is
one that may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of the argument.
Fallacies of this kind are usually found only in deductive arguments that have clearly recognizable
forms. The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals. All A are B.
All mammals are animals. All C are B.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals. Therefore, 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 mammals” is irrelevant in detecting the fallacy.
The problem may be traced to the second premise. If the letters C and B are interchanged the form
becomes valid, and the original argument with the same change introduced, also becomes valid (but
unsound).
On the other hand, informal fallacies are those that can be detected only through analysis of the
content of the argument or analysis of the meaning of the word. Consider the following example
All factories are plants. All A are B.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll. All B are C.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll. All A are C.
Since this form is valid one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the argument is
clearly invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. An analysis of the content, that is,
the meaning of the words reveals the source of the trouble. The word “plants” is used in two
different senses. In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured, and in the
second it means a life form. Thus, the argument has the following invalid form:
All A are B.
All C are D.
All A are D.
Precisely how the informal fallacies accomplish their purpose varies from case to case. Sometimes
they obscure the form of the argument so that the reader or listener is deluded in to thinking that the

Page 1
 INFORMAL FALLACIES

argument is valid when in fact it is not. In other cases they tend to prevent the reader or listener from
acknowledging a missing premises that, if acknowledged, would clearly seen to be false (or at least
questionable), and in some cases, they tend to delude the reader or listener in to thinking that an
acknowledged premise is true when it is either false or questionable. In any case the effect of
informal fallacy is to make a bad argument appear good.
Informal fallacies are frequently backed by some motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the
reader or listener. The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as
a result may attempt to win its acceptance by resorting to a trick. Sometimes the trick fools even the
arguer. The arguer may delude himself in to thinking that he is presenting genuine evidence when in
fact it is not.
Since the time of Aristotle, logicians attempted to classify the various informal fallacies. But, most
logicians identified twenty-two informal fallacies and divide them in to five groups. These are
fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity,
and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

3.1 Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are mistakes in reasoning that occurs because the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may
seem to follow from the premises, even though it doesn’t follow logically. In a good argument the
premises provide genuine evidence in support of the conclusion. In argument that commits a fallacy
of relevance, on the other hand, the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional. There
are about eight types of fallacies of relevance.
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the “Stick”)
The appeal to force fallacy occurs when ever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells
that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does
not accept the conclusion. The appeal to force fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to
physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader. Obviously, such a threat is logically
irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so any argument based on such a procedure is
fallacious.
This fallacy often occurs when children argue with one another. Example
Child to playmate: “Mister Rogress” is the best show on TV; and if you don’t believe it, I
am going to call my big brother over here and he is going to beat you up. But it occurs among
adults as well.
Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how I
am friendly with your wife, and I am sure you would not want her to find out what has been
going on between you and that sexpot client of yours.
The first example involves a physical threat, the second a psychological threat. While neither threat
provides any genuine evidence that the conclusion is true, both provide evidence that someone might

Page 2
INFORMAL FALLACIES

be injured. If the two types of evidence are confused with each other, both arguer and listener may
be deluded in to thinking that the conclusion is supported by evidence, when in fact it is not.
The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader
or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that , if acknowledged would be seen to be false
or at least questionable. The two examples just given can be interpreted as concealing the following
premise, both of which are most likely false:
If my brother forces you to admit that Mister Rogress is the best show on TV, then Mister
Rogress is in fact the best show.
If I succeed in threatening you, then I deserve a raise in salary.
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
The fallacy of appeal to pity occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion and then attempts to
evoke pity from the reader or listener in an effort to get him or her to accept the conclusion.
Example:
Parent to a high school foot ball coach: I admit my son Abel can’t run, pass, kick,
catch, block or tackle but he deserves to join the foot ball team, if he doesn’t join the
team, he is going to be an emotional wreck and he may even drop out of school.

Tax payer to judge: Your Honor admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on
my tax return, even though I have only two, and I realize that this was wrong. But if you
find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I will probably lose my job,
my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that she desperately needs, and my
kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.
The first argument may or may not be effective in arousing our sympathies. Logically, however, the
argument is clearly fallacious because the premises provide no relevant reason to accept the
conclusion. In the second example, the conclusion of the argument is “surely I am not guilty.”
Obviously the conclusion is not logically relevant to the arguer’s set of pathetic circumstances,
although it is psychologically relevant. If the arguer succeeds in evoking pity from the listener or
reader, the latter is liable to exercise his or her desire to help the arguer by accepting the argument.
In this way the reader or listener may be fooled in to accepting a conclusion that is not supported by
any evidence.
 The appeal to pity is common and is frequently used by students on their instructors at exam
time and by lawyers on behalf of their clients before judges and juries.
3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others.
The appeal to people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept the conclusion. There
are two approaches involved: direct and indirect.
The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the
emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his conclusion. The objective is to

Page 3
 INFORMAL FALLACIES

arouse a kind of mob mentality. This is a strategy used by nearly every propagandist and
demagogue.
In the indirect approach the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a whole but to one
or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspects 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. All are standard techniques of the advertising industry.
Bandwagon argument: example
Of course you want to buy zest tooth paste. Why, 90 percent of America brushes with zest.

The idea is that you will left behind or left out of the group if you do not use the product. The basic
pattern of the argument is this:
Everybody (or a selected group of people) believes or does X. Therefore, you should believe or do X.
The appeal to vanity often associates the product with a certain celebrity who is admired and
pursued, the idea being that you, too, be admired and pursued if you use it. Example:
Only the ultimate in fashion could complement the face of Christie Brinkley.
Spectrum sunglass is for the beautiful people in the jet set.
An example to appeal to snobbery:
A Roll Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of the select few, this distinguish
classic may be seen and driven at British motor cars, Ltd.
Both direct and indirect approaches of the adpopulum fallacy have the same basic structure:
You want to be accepted/ loved/ esteemed/ included in the group. … Therefore, you should
accept xyz as true.
4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and the other
then responds by directing his 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 is the reason why argument against the person is also known as ‘personal attack.’ This
argument occurs in three forms: the ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu
quoque (“you too”).
A. Ad hominem abusive
In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally
abusing the first person. Example:
Poet Allen Ginsberg has argued in favor of abolishing censorship of pornographic literature.
But Ginsberg’s argument is nothing but trash. Ginsberg, you know, is a marijuana smoking
homosexual and a through going advocate of the drug culture.

Page 4
INFORMAL FALLACIES

Since Ginsberg’s being a marijuana-smoking homosexual and advocate of the drug culture is
irrelevant to whether the premises of his argument support the conclusion, this argument is
fallacious.
B. Ad hominem circumstantial
The ad hominem circumstantial 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.
Example:
Bill Gates has argued at length that Microsoft Corporation does not have a monopoly on
computer disc operating systems. But Gates is a chief executive officer of Microsoft, and
he desperately wants to avoid antitrust action against his company. Therefore, we should
ignore Gates argument.
The author of this passage ignores the substances of Gates’ argument and attempts instead to
discredit it by calling attention to certain circumstances that affect gates- namely, the fact that he is
chief executive of Microsoft. The fact that Gates happens to be affected by these circumstances,
however, is irrelevant to whether his premises support a conclusion.
C. Tu quoque (you too) fallacy
The tu quoque (you too) or look who is talking fallacy occurs when the second arguer attempts to
make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in a bad faith. The second arguer usually
accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the
latter’s conclusion. In effect, the second arguer says, how dare you argue that I should stop doing X;
why, you do (or have done) X yourself. Example:
Child to parent: your agreement 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.
Obviously, whether the parent stole candy is irrelevant to whether the parent’s premises support the
conclusion that the child should not steal candy.
The fallacy of look who is talking is committed when an arguer rejects another person’s argument or
claim because that person fails to practice what he preaches.
5. Accident
The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover. Typically, a general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the
specific case mentioned in the conclusion. Because of the “accidental’ features of the specific case,
the general rule does not fit. Example:
Whoever thrusts a knife in to another person should be arrested. But surgeons do it
precisely when operating. Therefore, surgeons should be arrested.

Page 5
INFORMAL FALLACIES

Here, a general rule is misapplied (wrongly used), and then the argument commits the fallacy of
accident. Here is another example:
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Habtom should not
be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.
In this example, a general rule is misapplied since the right of freedom of speech has its limits.
6. Straw man
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and concludes that the
opponent’s real argument has been demolished. In other words, the straw man fallacy is committed
when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or claim to make it easier to attack.
Example:
Johnson has argued that the New York Yankees are a better foot ball team than the Atlanta
Braves. But the Braves are not a bad team. They have a great pitching staff, and they
consistently finish at or near the top of their division. Obviously, Johnson does not know
what he is talking about.
In this example, the argument misrepresents Johnson’s view since Johnson hasn’t claimed that the
braves are a bad team merely that the Yankees are a better foot ball team than the braves. By
mischaracterizing Johnsons view – making it seem weaker or less plausible than it really is. So, the
argument has committed the straw man fallacy.
The logical pattern of straw man is this:
X’s view is false or unjustified (but where X’s view has been unfairly characterized or
misrepresented).
Therefore, X’s view should be rejected.
Clearly, arguments of this pattern provide no logically relevant support for their conclusion.
7. Missing the point
Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance. This fallacy occurs when the premises of
an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related
to the correct conclusion. Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed, he or she
should be able to identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply.
This conclusion must be significantly different from the conclusion that is actually drawn. Example:
Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately.
The conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.
At least two correct conclusions are implied by the premises of this argument: either “we should
provide increased police protection in vulnerable neighborhood” or “we should initiate programs to

Page 6
INFORMAL FALLACIES

eliminate the causes of the crimes.” Reinstating death penalty is not a logical conclusion at all,
because theft and robbery are not capital crimes.
8. Red herring
The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener
by changing the subject to some totally different issue. He or she then finishes by either drawing a
conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been
established. By so doing the arguer purports to have won the argument. Example:
Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being an owner of slaves. But Jefferson was
one of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence is one of the most
eloquent pleas for freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly, these criticisms are
unwarranted.
The issue here is whether Jefferson can rightly be criticized for owning slaves, but not whether he
was one of America’s greatest presidents or whether he deserves credit for writing the Declaration of
Independence. By diverting the reader’s attention from the original argument and claiming that the
original argument has been refuted by the irrelevant diversion, the arguer commits red herring
fallacy.
To commit the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the
argument without the reader or listener noticing it. One way of doing so is to change it to some
flashy, eye- catching topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract one’s attention. Another way of
committing the red herring fallacy is by changing the subject to one that is subtly related to the
original argument.
The red herring fallacy could be confused with the straw man fallacy because both have the effect of
drawing the reader/ listener off the track. This confusion can usually be avoided by remembering the
unique ways in which they accomplish their purpose. In the straw man, the arguer begins by
distorting an opponent’s argument and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument. In the
red herring, on the other hand, the arguer ignores the opponent’s argument (if there is one) and
subtly changes the subject. Thus, to distinguish these two fallacies, one should attempt to determine
whether the arguer has knocked down a distorted argument or simply changed the subject.
Both red herring and straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the point,
because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. To avoid this confusion, one should realize
that both red herring and straw man fallacies proceed by generating a new set of premises, where as
missing the point does not. Straw man draws a conclusion from new premises that are obtained by
distorting an earlier argument, and red herring, if it draws any conclusion at all, draws one from new
premises obtained by changing the subject. Missing the point, however, draws a conclusion from
original premises. Also in red herring and straw man, the conclusion, if there is one, is relevant to the
premises from which it is drawn; but in missing the point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises
from which it is drawn.

Page 7
INFORMAL FALLACIES

3.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

Fallacies of weak induction unlike fallacies of relevance, occurs because the connection between
the premises and the conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. In this case the
premises provide at least a shred of evidence in support of the conclusion, but the evidence is not
nearly good enough to cause a reasonable person to believe the conclusion. There are about six types
of fallacies in this category.
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs
when the cited authority or witness is not trustworthy. There are several conditions why an authority
or witness might not be trust worthy. Among other things, the person might lack the requisite
expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might have a motive to lie or disseminate
“misinformation,” or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.
Example:
Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germans during WWII, has stated “Jews are not good Americans.

They have no understanding of what America is.” On the basis of Kant’s authority, we must
therefore conclude that the Jews in this country are un-American.
As an authority Kant is clearly biased, so his statement can’t be trusted.
Old Mrs. Furgusen (who is practically blind) has testified that she saw the defendant stab
the victim with a bayonet while she was standing in the twilight shadows 100 yards from
the incident. Therefore, members of the jury, you must find the defendant guilty.
In this case, the witness lacks the ability to perceive what she has testified to, so her testimony is
untrustworthy.
In deciding whether someone is a qualified authority, there are two important points to keep in mind.
First, someone might be an authority in more than one field. For example, a chemist might also be an
authority in biology, or an economist might also be an authority in law. The second point is that
there are some areas of argumentation where practically no one can be considered an authority. Such
areas include politics, morals, and religion. For example, if someone were to argue that abortion is
immoral because a certain philosopher or religious leader has said so, the argument would be weak
regardless of the authority’s qualifications. Many questions in these areas are so hotly contested that
there is no conventional wisdom an authority can depend on.
2. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam)
When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about
something and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits

Page 8
INFORMAL FALLACIES

the appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or
something that has not yet been proved.

Examples:

People have been trying for centauries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of
astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a
lot of nonsense.

Clearly, the following argument commits the same fallacy.

People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of astrology, and no one has
ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that the claims of astrology are true.

The premises of an argument are supposed to provide positive evidence for the conclusion. However
the premises of these arguments tell us nothing about astrology; rather they tell us about what certain
unnamed and unidentified people have tried unsuccessfully to do. This evidence may provide slight
evidence for believing the conclusion, but certainly not sufficient reason.

3. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

A generalization is a statement which asserts that all or most things of a certain kind have a certain
quality or characteristics. Some examples of generalization are:

We commit the fallacy of hasty generalization when we draw a general conclusion from a sample
that is biased or too small. Or this fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the
sample is not the representative the group. Such likelihood arises if the sample is either too small or
not randomly selected. Example:

Two weeks ago the Ajax pharmacy was robbed and the suspect is a black man. Yesterday
a black teenager snatched an old lady’s purse while she was waiting at the corner bus
stop .It implies that blacks are nothing but a pack of criminals.

This example shows how hasty generalization plays a role in racial prejudice. Hasty generalization is
also known as “converse accident” because it proceeds in a direction opposite to that of accident.
Whereas accident proceeds from general to particular, converse accident moves from particular to
general. The premise cites some characteristic affecting one or more atypical instances of a certain
class, and the conclusion then applies that characteristic to all members of the class.

4. False Cause (Questionable Cause)

We live in a world which is complex and mysterious. Often it is hard to know what has caused some
event to occur. When an arguer claims without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of
something else; he commits the fallacy of questionable cause or false cause.

Page 9
INFORMAL FALLACIES

In other words, the fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premise and
conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an
argument is suspected of committing a false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say
that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, where as X probably doesn’t cause
Y at all.

There are three common varieties of the false cause fallacy: the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy,
non causa pro causa (or the mere correlation) fallacy and the over simplified cause fallacy.

A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

The post hoc propter hoc fallacy – a Latin term (“after this, therefore because of this”) is
committed when an arguer assumes, without an adequate evidence, that because one event, A,
occurred before another event, B; A is the cause of B. Or this fallacy presupposes that just one event
precedes another event the first event causes the second. Example:

A black cat crossed my path and latter I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that
black cats really are bad luck.

This example illustrates how superstitions have their origin in post hoc thinking. However, mere
temporal succession is not sufficient to establish a causal connection.

B. The mere correlation fallacy

Another common variety of the false cause fallacy is the mere correlation (non causa pro causa)
fallacy- Latin term [“not the cause for the cause”].Sometimes two things or events are clearly
associated or linked. A relationship such as this, in which two things are frequently, or even
constantly, found together, is called a correlation.

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 merely temporal succession. In other words,
this variety of the false cause fallacy is committed when an arguer assumes, without a sufficient
evidence, that because A and B regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B and vice versa.

Example:

There are more laws on the books today than ever before, and more crimes are being
committed than ever before. Therefore, to reduce crimes we must eliminate the laws.

This argument depends on the supposition that laws cause crime. In this case it is unlikely that any
causal connection exists. The increase in crime is for the most part, only coincidental with the
increase in the number of laws. Obviously, the mere fact that one event is coincidental with another
event is not a sufficient reason to think that one caused the other.

C. Oversimplified cause fallacy

Page 10
INFORMAL FALLACIES

Perhaps the most common forms of the false cause fallacy is the over simplified cause fallacy. This
variety occurs when a multitude of causes are responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects
just one of these causes and represents it as if it were a sole cause. To put it differently, this fallacy
is committed when we assume, without sufficient evidence, that A is the sole cause of B when, in
fact, there are several causes of B.

Examples: The quality of education in the lower grade schools and high schools has been declining
for years. Clearly, our teachers just are not doing their job these days.

Today, all of us can look forward to a longer life span than our parents and grandparents.

Obviously, we owe our thanks to the millions of dedicated doctors who expend every
effort to ensure our health.

In the first argument the decline in the quality of education is caused by many factors, including
lack of discipline in the home, parental uninvolvement, too much TV, and drug use by students, etc.
Poor teacher performance is only one of these factors and probably a minor one at that. In the
second argument, the efforts of doctors are only one among many factors responsible for our longer
life span. Other, more important factors include a better diet, more exercise, reducing smoking, safer
high ways, and more stringent occupational safety standards.

 The oversimplified cause fallacy is usually motivated by self- serving interests. Sometimes
the arguer wants to take undeserved credit for himself or give undeserved credit to some
movement with which he is affiliated. At other times, the arguer wants to heap blame on
some person to whom he is opposed or shift blame from himself unto some convenient
occurrence.

5. Slippery Slope
We often hear arguments of this sort: “we can’t allow A, because A will lead to B, and B will lead to
C, and we sure as heck don’t want C!” Arguments of this sort are slippery slope arguments. Often
such arguments are fallacious.

The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of
an argument rests up on an alleged chain reaction and there is no sufficient reason to think that the
chain reaction will actually takes place. In other words, we commit the slippery slope fallacy when
we claim, without sufficient evidence that a seemingly harmless action, if taken, will lead to a
disastrous outcome. Example:

Immediate steps should be taken to outlaw pornography once and for all. The continued
sale and manufacture of pornographic material will almost certainly lead to sex related
crimes such as rape and incest. This in turn will gradually erode the moral fabric of society

Page 11
INFORMAL FALLACIES

and result in an increase in crimes of all sorts. Eventually, it results a complete

disintegration of law and order, leading in the end to the total collapse of civilization.

Because there is no good reason to think that the mere failure to outlaw pornography result in all
these dire consequences, this argument is fallacious. An equally fallacious counter argument is as
follows:

Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil rights and should be summarily
abandoned. If pornography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers and news magazines is
only a short step away. After that there will be censorship of textbooks, political speeches,
and the content of lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind control by the
central government will be the inevitable result.

Both arguments attempt to persuade the reader or listener that the welfare of society rests on a
“slippery slope” and that a single step in the wrong direction will result in an inevitable slide all the

way to the bottom.

The basic pattern of slippery slope is:

1. The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is permitted, A will lead to
B, and B will lead to C, and so on to D.
2. The arguer holds that D is 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.
6. Weak Analogy
We have all heard the expression “That is like comparing apples and oranges.” This saying point to a
mistake called the fallacy of weak analogy, which occurs when an arguer compares two (or more)
things that are not really comparable in relevant respects. Example

Hussen’s new car is bright blue, has a leather upholstery, and gets excellent gas mileage.
Kedir’s new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets
excellent gas mileage, too.

Because of the color of a car and the choice of upholstery have nothing to do with gasoline
consumption, this argument is fallacious. Another example:

Dechassa is tall, dark, handsome, and has blue eyes. Mustefa is also tall, dark, and
handsome. Therefore, Mustefa has probably blue eyes, too.

The basic pattern of an argument from analogy is:

1. Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.

2. Entity B has attributes a, b, c.

Page 12
INFORMAL FALLACIES

3. Therefore, entity B probably has attributes z too.

Evaluating an argument having this form requires a two step procedure: (1) identify the attributes a,
b, c,… that the two entities A and B share in common, and (2) determine how the attributes Z,
mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c, … If some causal or systematic
connection exists between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak.

In the first example above, the two entities share the attributes of being cars; the attributes entailed by
being a car, such as having four wheels; and the attributes of color and upholstery material. Because
none of these attributes is systematically or causally related to good gas mileage, the argument is
fallacious.

So as to illustrate when the requisite systematic or causal relation does and does not exist, consider
the following arguments:

The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through a pipe.
Obviously a large- diameter pipe will carry a greater flow of water than a pipe of smaller-
diameter. Therefore, a large- diameter wire should carry a greater flow of electricity than a
smaller- diameter wire.

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.

The first argument is good and the second is fallacious. Both arguments depend on the similarity
between water molecules flowing through a pipe and electrons flowing through a wire. In both cases
there is a systematic relation between the diameter of the pipe/wire and the amount of flow. In the
first argument, this systematic relation provides a strong link between the premises and conclusion,
and so the argument is a good one. But in the second argument a causal connection exists between
difference in elevation and increase in pressure that holds for water but not for electricity. Water
molecules flowing through a pipe are affected by gravity, but electrons flowing through a wire are
not. Thus, the second argument is fallacious.

3.3 Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of presumption occur not because the premises provide insufficient evidence for believing
the conclusion but the premises presume what they purport to prove. Fallacies of presumption
include begging the question, complex questions, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence.

1. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

The fallacy of begging the question is committed when an arguer states or assumes as a premise
the very thing he or she is trying to prove as a conclusion. Or begging the question occurs when an

Page 13
INFORMAL FALLACIES

arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key
premise. If the reader or listener is deceived in to thinking that the key premise is true, he or she will
accept the argument as sound, when in fact it may not be. There are three common ways to commit
this fallacy.

The first and most obvious way is simply to restate the conclusion in slightly different ways.

Example

Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is ethically impermissible to inflict death

as punishment for a crime.

In this example the conclusion is begged because saying that it is “ethically impermissible” to inflict
death as a punishment for a crime is equivalent to saying that capital punishment is “morally
wrong”. Because premise and conclusion mean the same thing, it is obvious that if the premise is
true, the conclusion is also true; so the argument is valid. The only question that remains is whether
the premise is true. When read apart from the context of the argument, the premise is questionable, at
best. But when it is preceded by the conclusion, as it is here, the alleged truth is strengthened. This
strengthening is caused by the psychological illusion that results from saying the same thing in two
slightly different ways. When a single proposition is repeated in two or more ways, without the
repetition becoming obvious, the suggested truth of the proposition is reinforced.

The second common form of begging the question involves “circular reasoning” or “arguing in a
circle”. This occurs when an arguer offers a chain of reason for a conclusion, where the conclusion
of the argument is stated or assumed as one of the premises. Example

Kedir: God wrote the Bible.

Hussen: How do you know?
Kedir: Because it says so in the Bible and what the Bible says is true.
Hussen: How do you know what the Bible says is true?
Kedir: Because God wrote the Bible.

In this chain of arguments the final conclusion is stated first. The truth of this conclusion depends on
each link in the chain and ultimately on the first premise (stated last), which asserts the same thing as
the final conclusion (stated first). That is why begging the question is frequently called circular
reasoning.

A third form of begging the question occurs when a questionably true premise, which is needed to
make the argument valid, is completely ignored. Example

Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.

The questionable premise that is ignored is, “Abortion is a form of murder.” The argument begs the
question, “How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?” the premise that is stated, of

Page 14
INFORMAL FALLACIES

course, is indisputably true, and the phrase “This being the case” makes it appear that the stated
premise is all that is needed. If the reader or listener concentrates on the truth of the stated premise
and overlooks the fact that a highly questionable premise is needed to complete the argument, he or
she is liable to accept the argument as immediately sound.

2. Complex Questions

The fallacy of complex question is committed when a single question that is really two (or more)
questions is asked and a single answer is then applied to both questions. Every complex question
presumes the existence of a certain condition. When the respondent’s answer is added to complex
question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition. Thus, although not an
argument as such a complex question involves an implicit argument. This argument is usually
intended to trap the respondent in to acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not
want to acknowledge. Examples:

Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Where did you hide the cookies you stole?

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 cookies you stole. You replied “under the bed”. It
follows that you did in fact steal the cookies.

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 cookies you stole. You answered “nowhere.” It follows
that you must have stolen them and eaten them.

Obviously, each of the above questions is really two questions.

Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?
Did you steal the cookies? If you did them where did you hide them?

If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify the complex question when one is put on
them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is not supported by
evidence at all; or they may be tricked in to providing the evidence themselves. The correct response
lies in resolving the complex question in to its component questions and answering each separately.

Page 15
INFORMAL FALLACIES

3. False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy (“false bifurcation” and the “either …or” fallacy) is committed
when one premise of an argument is an “either…or…” (disjunctive) statement that presents two
alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative were possible). One of these
alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer. When the arguer then proceeds to eliminate the
undesirable alternative, the desirable one is left as the conclusion.

The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or
listener in to thinking that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives and is
therefore true by necessity.

 The fallacy is commonly committed by children and adolescents when arguing with their
parents, by advertisers, and by adults generally.
Examples:

Either you let me attend Teddy Afro’s concert or I will be miserable for the rest of my
life. I know you don’t want me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that
you will let me attend the concert.

Either you buy only American-made products or you don’t deserve to be called a loyal
American. Yesterday you bought a new Toyota. It is therefore clear that you don’t
deserve to be called a loyal American.

From these examples, none of the disjunctive premises in these arguments presents alternatives that
are jointly exhaustive. Yet, in each case the arguer wants to make it appear that it does. In the first
argument the arguer wants to convey the illusion that either he or she goes to the concert or faces a
life time of misery, and no other alternatives are possible. Clearly, however, such is not the case.

4. Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when an argument ignores some important piece of
evidence that out weights the presented evidence. Example:

Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them. Therefore, it could be
safe to pet the little dog that is approaching us now.

If the arguer ignores the fact that the little dog is excited and foaming at the mouth (which suggests
rabies), then the argument commits suppressed evidence. This fallacy is classified as a fallacy of
presumption because it works by creating the presumption that the premises are both true and
complete when in fact they are not.

Page 16
INFORMAL FALLACIES

To detect the fallacy of suppressed evidence, the reader or the listener must make sure that the arguer
is not ignoring stronger evidence that supports a different conclusion. This, in turn, requires a
general knowledge of the topic to which the argument pertains and a familiarity with the devices
used by unscrupulous individuals to pass off half- truth.

3.4 Fallacies of Ambiguity

The fallacy of ambiguity arises from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the
conclusion or the premises (or both). This fallacy includes equivocation and amphiboly.

1. Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of the argument depends on the fact that
one or more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.

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 laws of gravity are a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.

We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defense of the
innocent. Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defense of the innocent.

In the first argument “obtuse” is used in more than 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 different senses. In the first
premise “right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a just claim or power. The fallacy
of equivocation occurs when the reader or listener fails to distinguish the two meanings of “obtuse”,
“law”, and “right” respectively. Then he or she is likely to think that the conclusion follows from the
premises, when in fact it does not.

2. Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing
to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The
original statement is usually asserted by someone other than the arguer, and the structural defect is
usually a mistake in grammar or in punctuation. Because of this defect, the statement may be
understood in two clearly distinguishable ways. Examples:

Jemal told Yassin that he had made a mistake. It follows that Jemal has at least the courage
to admit his own mistakes.

Page 17
INFORMAL FALLACIES

Professor Efrem said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology lecture
hall. It must be the case that a number of heart failures have occurred there recently.

In the first argument “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to Jemal or to Yassin.
Perhaps Jemal told Yassin that Yassin has made a mistake. In the second argument the ambiguity
concerns what takes place in the biology lecture hall; is it the lecture or the heart failure? The correct
interpretation is probably the former. The ambiguity can be eliminated by inserting commas
(professor Efrem said that he will give a lecture, about heart failure, in the biology hall”) or by
moving the ambiguous modifier (professor Efrem said that he will give a lecture in the biology
lecture hall about heart failure”).

Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two different ways. First, equivocation is always traced to
an ambiguity in the meaning of one or more words, where as amphiboly involves a structural defect
in a statement. The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by the
arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else, where as the ambiguity in
equivocation is typically the arguer’s own creation.

3.5 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good
in every respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may
appear good but yet be bad. There are two kinds of fallacies: composition and division.

1. Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from the part of something unto the whole. In other words,
the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the
whole has that attribute too and the situation is such that the attributes in question cannot be
legitimately transferred from the parts to the whole. Examples:

Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a
whole is excellent.

Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible. Sodium and
chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is deadly
poison.

In these arguments the attributes that are transferred from the parts unto the whole are designated by
the words “excellent”, “invisible”, and “deadly poison”. In each case the transference is illegitimate,
and so the argument is fallacious. However, not every such transference is illegitimate. Example:

Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.

Page 18
INFORMAL FALLACIES

In this argument the attribute (having mass) is transferred from the parts unto the whole, but this
transference is quite legitimate/proper.

Sometimes composition is confused with hasty generalization. The only time this is possible is when
the “whole” is a class and the parts are members of the class. In such a case, composition proceeds
from the members of the class to the class itself. Hasty generalization, on the other hand, proceeds
from the specific to general. Because it is sometimes easy to mistake a statement about a class for a
general statement, composition can be mistaken for hasty generalization. This distinction falls back
on the difference between the collective and the distributive predication of an attribute. Consider
the following statements:

Fleas are small. Fleas are numerous.

The first statement is a general statement. The attribute of being small is predicated distributively,
that is, it is assigned or distributed to each and every flea in the class. It means each and every flea in
the class is small.

To distinguish composition form hasty generalization examining the conclusion of the argument is
important. That means if the conclusion is a general statement, the fallacy committed is hasty
generalization. But if the conclusion is a class statement, the fallacy is composition.

Example: Less gasoline is consumed by a car than by a truck. Therefore, less gasoline is consumed
in the United States by cars than by trucks.

In this argument, the conclusion is not a general statement but a class statement. The conclusion
states that the whole class of cars uses less gas than does the whole trucks (which is false, because
there are many more cars than trucks). Since the attributes of using less gasoline is predicted
collectively, the fallacy committed is composition

2. Division
The fallacy of division is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from a whole (or class) unto its parts (or members). So it is the exact
reverse of composition.

Examples: Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and
chlorine, are nonpoisonous.

This jigsaw puzzle, when assembled, is circular in shape. Therefore, each piece is circular in
shape.

In each case, the attribute designated respectively by the terms “nonpoisonous”, “circular in shape”,
is illegitimately transferred from the whole or class unto the parts or members. However, as with the
fallacy of composition this kind of transference is not always illegitimate.

Page 19
INFORMAL FALLACIES

Example: This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have
a mass. Obviously, this argument contains no fallacy.

Just as composition is sometimes prone to being confused with hasty generalization, division is
sometimes prone to being confused with accident. As with composition, this confusion can occur
only when the “whole” is a class. In such a case division proceeds from a class to the members,
while accident proceeds from the general to the specific. Thus, if a class statement is mistaken for a
general statement, division may be mistaken for accident. To avoid such confusion, one should
analyze the premises of the argument. Accordingly, if the premises contain a general statement the
fallacy committed is accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy committed is division.
Examples:

Stanley steamers have almost disappeared. This car is a Stanley steamer.

Therefore, this car has almost disappeared.

From this example, the first premise is not a general statement but a class statement. The attributes
of having almost disappeared is distributed collectively. Accordingly, the fallacy committed is
division, not accident.

Page 20