Logic - Chapter 5 (premium)

hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- t F- t
PD
PD
or
or
!
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
Y
Y
U
U
B
B
to
to
ww
ww
om
om
k
k
lic
lic
C
C
.c
.c
w
w
tr re tr re
.
.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
Logic And Critical Thinking - Chapter Five

INFORMAL FALLACIES
Lesson 1: Fallacy in General
Understanding Fallacies
Fallacy - A mistake in reasoning or argument, breaking rules or criteria.
Four Rules for a Good Argument:

1. Relevance: Arguments must have premises related to the truth of the conclusion.
2. Acceptance: Premises should be logical and acceptable to rational people.
3. Sufficiency: Enough strong premises to support the conclusion.
4. Rebuttal: Effective response to counterarguments.
Fallacies: Mistakes in reasoning or creating illusions that make a bad argument

seem good. Can occur in deductive and inductive arguments, making them weak
or not believable.
Remember, an argument is strong if it follows all rules and avoids fallacies.
Types of Fallacies
Formal Fallacies:
- Definition: Structural defects in arguments, identifiable through their form.
- Examples:
- Categorical syllogisms like "All A are B. All C are B. Therefore, all A are C."
- Hypothetical syllogisms like "If A, then B. B. Therefore, A."
- Identification: Can be spotted by inspecting the argument's structure.
Informal Fallacies:
- Definition: Defects in argument content, not easily identified by structure alone.
- Examples:
- Affirming the consequent: "If A, then B. B. Therefore, A."
- Identification: Requires detailed analysis of argument content.
- Key Point: Informal fallacies can hide their true forms.
@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

Distinguishing Formal and Informal Fallacies:
- Formal: Found only in deductive arguments like categorical or hypothetical
syllogisms.
- Informal: Can occur in both deductive and inductive arguments.
- Watch Out: Check for improper arrangement of terms or statements in standard
deductive argument forms.
Remember to analyze both the structure and content of an argument to identify

fallacies correctly.
Informal Fallacies
Definition: Mistakes in reasoning that can't be identified by analyzing the

structure but require analyzing the content of the argument.
Identification: Focus on the meaning of words, how statements are constructed,

and how inferences are made.
Example: "Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God"
Analysis: Invalid due to different meanings of "plants" in premises.
Classification:
1. Fallacies of Relevance
2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
3. Fallacies of Presumption
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
Aristotle identified thirteen informal fallacies, later logicians added more, mak-
ing classification challenging.

1. Fallacies of Relevance
Characteristics:
Fallacies of relevance have premises that are emotionally relevant but not logi-
cally connected to the conclusion. In good arguments, premises provide gen-
uine evidence, but in fallacies, the connection is emotional. They are also known
as non sequiturs or argumentative leaps.
Identification:
Distinguishing between genuine evidence and emotional appeal helps identify

fallacies of relevance.
1.1 Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) ...
በግዳጅ (በጉልበት)..ማሳመን
Definition: When an arguer threatens harm to coerce someone into accepting a

conclusion, regardless of its logical relevance.
Example:
- Threatening physical or psychological harm to force compliance.
- "Drop the charge against me, or I'll torture you and your family."
Explanation:
- Threats are used to support the conclusion, which is logically unrelated.
- Even indirect threats, like job loss, are fallacious if not logically connected to the
conclusion.
Purpose: To psychologically pressure acceptance by hiding the lack of logical

support.

1.2 Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
በአዘኔታ..ማሳመን
Definition: Trying to support a conclusion by evoking pity in the audience, even if

the reasons for pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion.
Example:
- "Give Mr. Oumer Abdulla the headship position because he has six hungry chil-
dren and his wife needs an operation."
Explanation:
- Pity-inducing circumstances are used to support a conclusion without logical

relevance.
- Compassion is a natural response, but it doesn't always justify a conclusion.
- Legitimate: Helping those in situations beyond their control.
Purpose: To distract from logical analysis by appealing to emotions.
1.3 Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
Definition: Trying to persuade by appealing to desires for acceptance, esteem,

or belongingness, rather than providing logical reasons. with different forms like
1. Bandwagon 2.Vanity 3.Snobbery.
Example:
- "I'm proud to stand with hard-working people who support our view on trade
agreements."
Explanation:
- Emotions of acceptance are used to support a conclusion, not logical.
To exploit the desire for acceptance or approval to sway opinions.
Appealing to the need for acceptance doesn't provide logical support for a
conclusion.

1.3.1 Bandwagon Fallacy
"ትክክል ነው ምክንያቱም ብዙ ሰዎች ተስማምተዋል" ብሎ..ማሳመን
Definition: Appeals to the desire to belong to a group or community by suggest-

ing that because the majority believes or does something, it must be true or right.
Example:
- "Most people in Ethiopia support child circumcision, so you should too."
Explanation:
- Assumes that because the majority believes or does something, it is correct.
- Encourages conformity rather than critical thinking.
Note: Accepting a belief solely because it is popular doesn't make it valid or logi-
cal.
1.3.2 Appeal to Vanity
"ታዋቂ ሰዎች የሚጠቀሙበትን ከተጠቀምክ ትደነቃለክ" ብሎ..ማሳመን
Definition: Links a product or idea to someone famous or respected, suggesting

that using it will make you admired or respected too.
Example:
- "Wear these shoes like Christian Ronaldo does, and everyone will think you're
cool too!"
Explanation:
- Suggests that using the product will make others admire or respect you.
- Appeals to the desire to be like admired individuals.
Note: Buying something just because a famous person uses it doesn't mean you'll
be admired like them.

1.3.3 Appeal to Snobbery
"ምርቱን መጠቀም ማለት ገዢው ከሁሉም ሰው የተሻለ / ብልህ / ሀብታም ነው ማለት ነው."
ብሎ..ማሳመን
Definition: Appeals to the desire to be seen as superior to others, often by sug-

gesting that using a product or adopting a belief will make one part of an elite
group.
Example:
- "Gebeta Guder wine isn't for everyone, but you're different. You're not like ev-
eryone else, so this wine is for you."
Explanation:
- Exploits the desire to feel superior to others, particularly by associating with a

perceived elite group.
- Appeals to the idea that being different or exclusive is desirable.
- Encourages purchasing or belief adoption based on the desire for exclusivity or

superiority.
Purpose: To persuade by tapping into the desire to be seen as unique or superior.
Sometimes, people accept certain ideas or policies because they believe

they're good or useful. For example, many agree that killing is wrong because it's
a basic moral principle in most societies. This widespread agreement makes the
idea even more important to consider.
In simple terms, when many people think something is right, it's worth taking seri-
ously. This doesn't mean we can't question it, but it shows that people have
thought about it and agree on its importance.
In short, when lots of people agree on something, it's powerful and should be
thought about carefully.

1.4 Argument against the Person (Ad Hominem)
Definition: When instead of addressing an argument, someone attacks the per-

son making the argument.
Explanation: This happens when one person responds to an argument by focus-

ing on the character or circumstances of the other person rather than the argu-
ment itself. It's like saying, "You can't be trusted, so your argument is wrong."
Example: If someone says, "We should invest in renewable energy," and the re-
sponse is, "You're just saying that because you work for a renewable energy
company."
Impact: This tactic undermines trust and credibility, making it seem like the per-
son's argument isn't worth considering. It shuts down meaningful dialogue be-
cause it suggests the person can't be trusted, regardless of the strength of their
argument.
Types: There are three forms of this fallacy:
1. Ad Hominem Abusive: Attacks the person directly.
2. Ad Hominem Circumstantial: Attacks the person's circumstances or interests.
3. Tu Quoque: Points out the person's hypocrisy instead of addressing the argu-
ment.
Instead of engaging with ideas, attacking the person is an unfair way to dismiss
their arguments. It's important to focus on the merits of the argument itself rather
than resorting to personal attacks.

1.4.1 Ad Hominem Abusive
ክርክር የሚያደርገውን ሰው በቃላት ማጥቃት (ስድብ)...
Definition: When someone responds to an argument by verbally attacking the

person making the argument.
Explanation: Instead of addressing the argument itself, this fallacy attacks the
character of the person presenting the argument. The attacker tries to discredit
the argument by insulting the person.
Example: If someone argues for animal rights legislation, and the response is, "We
shouldn't listen to you because you're a divorced drunk who can't even take
care of your own family."
This tactic aims to undermine the credibility of the person, making their argument
seem less trustworthy. It's an unfair way to dismiss ideas based on personal at-
tacks rather than addressing the merits of the argument.
Form:
Premise: The person making the argument is of bad character.
Conclusion: Therefore, their argument should not be accepted.
Attacking someone personally doesn't refute their argument. It's important to fo-
cus on the substance of the argument rather than resorting to insults.
1.4.2 Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy
የአንድ ሰው ሁኔታ እንደ ሥራው፣ የፖለቲካ ወገንተኝነት ወይም ሌሎች የግል አመለካከቶች
ለመከራከር ያነሳሳቸዋል ስለዚህም ሐሰት መሆን አለበት በማለት ይከራከራሉ።
Definition: When someone tries to discredit an argument by pointing out circum-

stances or biases that may influence the arguer's position.
Explanation: Instead of addressing the argument directly, this fallacy focuses on

the personal circumstances or interests of the person making the argument. By
suggesting that their situation affects their viewpoint, the attacker tries to under-
mine the credibility of the argument.

Example: If a king argues for international support to expel invaders from his
country, and the response is, "Don't listen to him; he only wants foreign help to re-
gain his power once the invaders are gone."
Impact: This tactic aims to dismiss the argument by implying that the person mak-
ing it has ulterior motives or conflicts of interest. It diverts attention from the sub-
stance of the argument to the personal circumstances of the arguer.
Form:
- Premise: The person making the argument has certain circumstances or biases.
- Conclusion: Therefore, their argument should not be taken seriously.
Dismissing an argument based on the circumstances of the person making it is

unfair and illogical. It's essential to evaluate arguments based on their merits, not
the personal attributes or interests of the arguer.
1.4.3 Tu Quoque (You Too) Fallacy
"አንተ ራስህ ስታደርገው እንዴት እንዳቆም ትነግረኛለህ?".. ብሎ..ማሳመን
Definition: The tu quoque fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument

by pointing out that the person making the argument is guilty of similar behavior
or holding contradictory beliefs.
Explanation: Instead of addressing the argument itself, this fallacy shifts the focus
to the behavior or beliefs of the person making the argument. By highlighting
their inconsistency, the attacker attempts to discredit their argument.
Example: If a smoker is advised by a doctor to quit smoking, and the smoker re-
sponds, "How can you tell me to quit when you smoke yourself?"
Impact: This tactic aims to undermine the credibility of the person making the ar-
gument rather than engaging with the argument's merits. It suggests that their
behavior or beliefs make their argument invalid.
Dismissing an argument based on the behavior or beliefs of the person making it

is illogical. Arguments should be evaluated based on their merits, not the per-
sonal attributes or actions of the arguer.

1.5 Accident Fallacy
ለየት ያለ ሁኔታ ችላ በሚባልበት ጊዜ.
Definition: The accident fallacy occurs when a general rule is applied to a spe-
cific case it was not intended to cover. This happens when the unique circum-
stances of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.
Explanation: The fallacy arises when a general principle or rule is incorrectly ap-
plied without considering the specific details or context of the situation. This over-
sight results in an invalid conclusion.
Example: "Human beings have the ability to hear sounds. Therefore, all people
are cabable of hearing sounds"
Conclusion: To avoid the accident fallacy, it's essential to carefully consider the
specifics of each case before applying general rules or principles. This ensures
that conclusions are valid and appropriate within the given context.
1.6 Straw Man Fallacy
የአንድን ሰው ክርክር በተሳሳተ መንገድ ማቅረብ
Definition: The straw man fallacy occurs when an arguer distorts their opponent's
argument to make it easier to attack, demolishes the distorted version, and then
claims to have refuted the opponent's real argument.
Explanation: This fallacy involves misrepresenting the opponent's position by pre-

senting a weakened or exaggerated version of it. By attacking this distorted ver-
sion, the arguer avoids engaging with the actual argument and falsely claims
victory.
Example:
when a teacher proposes that the class spend more time on math exercises, a
parent concludes that the teacher doesn't care about science and art
Impact: The straw man fallacy undermines constructive debate by avoiding

genuine engagement with opposing arguments. It creates a false sense of vic-
tory without addressing the substance of the opponent's position.

1.7 Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
ማይገናኝ ድምዳሜ
Definition: Missing the point occurs when the premises of an argument logically
support one conclusion, but a different and often vaguely related conclusion is
drawn instead.
Explanation: This fallacy occurs when an arguer fails to recognize the logical im-
plications of their premises and draws a conclusion that is not directly supported
by the argument. The conclusion reached is tangential or unrelated to the main
point of the argument.
Example:
Premises: Globalization is increasing, benefiting rich nations at the expense of the

poor.
Incorrect Conclusion: Poor nations should detach themselves from the globaliza-
tion process.
1.8 Red Herring Fallacy
ወሬውን መቀየር
Definition: The red herring fallacy occurs when an arguer diverts attention from
the original subject by introducing a different, often subtly related topic. The ar-
guer then concludes or presumes that this new topic supports their argument,
leading to the misconception that they have won the argument.
Explanation: This fallacy is named after a practice used in training hunting dogs,
where a strong-smelling fish, such as a red herring, is used to mislead the dogs
from the original scent. Similarly, the arguer leads the audience away from the
main topic to distract them from the argument's weakness or to shift the focus to
a more favorable topic.

Example:
Accusation of a company being a water polluter. Company representative shifts

the focus to the pollution caused by a paper company owned by the accuser.
Differentiation from Straw Man Fallacy, Red herring diverts attention without distorting
an opponent's argument, whereas the straw man misrepresents an opponent's argu-
ment to knock it down.
Recognizing and avoiding the red herring fallacy is crucial for maintaining logi-
cal discussions and preventing deceptive tactics from misleading the audience.
2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
The purpose of premises in an argument is to provide sufficient reasons for a ra-

tional person to accept the truth of the conclusion. However, sometimes
premises may not effectively support the conclusion, leading to weak induction
fallacies. These fallacies occur when the connection between premises and
conclusion is not strong enough to justify accepting the conclusion.
Types of Fallacies of Weak Induction:
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority: Relying on an authority figure who lacks ex-

pertise or credibility in the subject matter.
2. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on insufficient evi-

dence or a small sample size.
3. False Cause: Incorrectly attributing causation between two events without suf-
ficient evidence.
4. Weak Analogy: Comparing two situations that are not sufficiently similar to
support the conclusion.
5. Slippery Slope: Assuming that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to
a chain of negative events.
6. Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing that a lack of evidence against a claim proves

its truth, or vice versa.

2.1 Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
ብቃት በሌላቸው ሰዎች ላይ መተማመን
Definition: This fallacy occurs when someone relies on the testimony or opinion of
an authority figure who lacks the necessary expertise or credibility in the subject
matter.
Explanation: Instead of providing solid evidence or reasons, the arguer appeals

to the authority of someone who may not be qualified to speak on the topic. This
tactic aims to persuade by relying on the authority's reputation rather than the
strength of the argument itself.
Example: If a famous artist claims that a certain brand of medicine is the good
option, without any expertise in medical
it's an appeal to unqualified authority. Just because they're famous doesn't

mean they know about medicine.
Relying on unqualified authorities can lead to false beliefs or conclusions. It's cru-
cial to assess the expertise and credibility of the authority before accepting their
opinion as valid.
2.2 Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
ምክንያቱም በዚህ ላይ ምንም ማስረጃ ስለሌለ እውነት/ውሸት መሆን አለበት።
Definition: This fallacy occurs when an argument states that because something
has not been proven true or false, it must be true or false respectively.
Explanation: Instead of providing evidence or reasons to support a conclusion,

this fallacy relies on the absence of evidence to make a definitive assertion. It as-
sumes that lack of proof in one direction automatically proves the opposite.
Example: There is no proof that God does not exist; therefore, God exists
Form:
No evidence has been found to prove or disprove a claim.Therefore, the claim

must be true/false.

2.3 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
በጥቂት አባላት ላይ በመመስረት በአጠቃላይ ቡድን ላይ መወሰን
Definition: Hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion about a whole group

is drawn from premises that mention only a few instances. This fallacy arises when
the sample used is not representative of the entire population.
Explanation: Hasty generalization is a flaw in inductive reasoning, where the ar-

gument assumes that what is true for a small sample is true for the entire group.
This happens when the sample is too small or not randomly selected, leading to
an inaccurate conclusion.
Example: “I've met two people in Ethiopian so far, and they were both nice to
me. So, all the people I will meet in Ethiopia will be nice to me.”.
Form:
A conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises that mention only a
few instances. Therefore, the conclusion applies to the entire group.
Drawing conclusions about large groups based on small, unrepresentative sam-

ples is illogical. To avoid hasty generalizations, it's important to ensure that the
sample used is truly representative of the entire population.
2.4 False Cause Fallacy
Definition: The false cause fallacy occurs when an argument incorrectly assumes
a causal connection between two events or phenomena.
Explanation: This fallacy arises when an argument suggests that because one
event precedes another, it must have caused the second event. However,
temporal succession alone is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship.
There may be other factors at play that influence the outcome.
Example: "Since I started wearing my lucky socks, my favorite team has been
winning. Therefore, my lucky socks are the reason for their success."
Forms of False Cause Fallacy:
1. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc 2. Non Causa Pro Causa 3.Oversimplified Cause

2.4.1 Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
ተክታትለው ስለመጡ፣ በዛ ምክንያት ነው ነገሩ የሆነው
Definition: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "after this, there-
fore because of this." This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because
one event happened before another, the first event must have caused the sec-
ond.
Example:
Explanation: While longer prison sentences may contribute to a decrease in

crime rates, the mere fact that crime rates decreased after the implementation
of longer sentences does not prove causation. Other factors, such as economic
conditions, job availability, demographic changes, or increased police pres-
ence, could also influence crime rates.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning is a common fallacy that assumes causa-
tion based solely on temporal succession. To avoid this fallacy, it's important to
critically evaluate causality by considering other possible factors that could ex-
plain the observed relationship between events.
2.4.2 Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy
መንስኤው ባልሆነበት መንስኤው ማማድረግ
Definition: Non causa pro causa, meaning "not the cause for the cause," occurs
when something is wrongly identified as the cause of an outcome when it's not
actually the cause.
Explanation: This fallacy happens when an argument assumes that one thing
causes another, but the alleged cause is not truly responsible for the effect. The
mistake is not based on temporal succession but on misidentifying the cause.
Example: "Putting more police on the streets actually causes crime to increase!"
Non causa pro causa fallacy occurs when the cause of an outcome is
misattributed. To avoid this fallacy, it's essential to critically assess whether the al-
leged cause truly leads to the observed effect or if there are other factors at
play.
2.4.3 Oversimplified Cause Fallacy
አንድ ምክንያት እንደ ብቸኛ መንስኤ..መውሰድ
Definition: The oversimplified cause fallacy occurs when an argument presents

one factor as the sole cause of a complex phenomenon, ignoring other con-
tributing factors.
Explanation: Instead of acknowledging multiple causes that contribute to an ef-

fect, the arguer simplifies the explanation by focusing on one factor. This fallacy
overlooks the complexity of the situation and fails to consider other relevant fac-
tors.
Example: "In Ethiopia, the grades of fresh students in universities have been drop-
ping for several years. What accounts for this? Well, during these same years, the
average time students spend on Tiktok (per day) has increased. So, the cause is
obvious: students are spending much of their time surfing on Tiktok when they
need to be reading instead."
y acknowledging the multifaceted nature of causality, one can develop more

comprehensive and effective solutions to address complex issues.
2.5 Slippery Slope Fallacy
በወሬ አንዛዝቶ መደምደም
Definition: The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes that a
chain of events will occur based on a single initial action, without sufficient evi-
dence that one event will cause the others.
Explanation: In a slippery slope argument, the arguer warns against taking a par-
ticular action because it is believed to lead inevitably to a series of increasingly
negative consequences. The fallacy arises when the connections between
these events are weak or speculative, and there is insufficient evidence to sup-
port the claim that one event will cause the next.
To avoid the slippery slope fallacy, it's essential to critically evaluate the connec-
tions between events and demand sufficient evidence to support claims of
causality.

Example: "If students are required to wear uniforms to school, they'll do less
shopping at local clothing stores. With less business, the stores will close, which
will hurt our local economy."
2.6 Weak Analogy Fallacy
ማይገናኝ ነገር ማገናኘት
Definition: The weak analogy fallacy occurs when an argument from analogy re-
lies on a comparison between two cases that are not sufficiently similar to sup-
port the conclusion drawn.
Explanation: Argument from analogy is a common form of reasoning where two

cases are compared based on their similarities in certain respects. However, for
the analogy to be strong and valid, the two cases must be sufficiently similar rel-
evant to the property being compared. In the case of weak analogy, the similar-
ities between the two cases are not strong enough to justify the conclusion.
Example: Just like we need to water plants regularly to keep them healthy, we
should also water our cars regularly to keep them in good condition.
The weak analogy fallacy undermines the strength of an argument by drawing

parallels between two cases that are not sufficiently alike.
3 Fallacies of Presumption
The fallacies of presumption are errors in reasoning where the premises of an

argument assume or presume what they are supposed to prove.
1. Begging the Question 2. Complex Question
3. False Dichotomy 4. Suppressed Evidence
we will drr deeper into each of these fallacies of presumption.

3.1 Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
Begging the question, also known as petitio principii, is a fallacy where the ar-
guer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide sufficient support for
the conclusion. This illusion is achieved by either leaving out a possibly false key
premise, restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or reasoning in a
circular manner. The term "petition principii" translates to "request for the source,"
indicating that the source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, prompt-
ing observers to question the validity of the argument.
1. Leaving Out a Key Premise: This occurs when a crucial premise is omitted from
the argument, giving the impression that nothing further is needed to establish
the conclusion
ዋና ሃሳቡን ሚደግፈውን መዘለል
For example: "Humans and apes are similar, so they must have evolved from common
ancestors."
2. Restating a Possibly False Premise: This occurs when the conclusion merely re-
peats or rephrases a possibly false premise.
መክንያቱን መደምደሚያው ላይ መድገም
For example: "Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future, be-
cause preaching revolution requires envisioning the future."
3. Circular Reasoning: This occurs when a chain of inferences relies on a possibly

false initial premise, resulting in circular reasoning.
ነገሩን ዞሮ ማምጣት
For example: "Harar brewery produces the finest beer because they have the
best chemist, and they can afford to pay them more because they produce the
finest beer in the country."
Begging the question is often used in arguments concerning religious topics or to

reinforce pre-existing beliefs, but it is a fallacy that fails to provide sound reason-
ing or evidence for the conclusion.

3.2 Complex Question Fallacy
ምርጫ (የሰጡ በማስመሰል) ማጥመድ
ለመሳሌ: "ፈተና ላይ መኮረጅ አቁመሻል?"
- አዎ ቢልም አይ፣ ያ ሰው መኮረጁ ላይ ሳይፈልግ ይስማማል
The fallacy of a complex question occurs when two or more questions are com-
bined into one, typically to trap the respondent into acknowledging something
they might not want to admit. While not an argument per se, a complex ques-
tion implies a certain condition, and the respondent's answer is used to establish
that condition.
Examples: 1. "Have you stopped cheating on exams?"
- This question combines two inquiries: whether the respondent has cheated in
the past and whether they have stopped. Regardless of the response, it can be
interpreted to imply guilt.
Response Interpretation:
- If the respondent answers "yes" to the first question and provides a location for
the second, it's implied they have cheated
- Conversely, if they answer "no" to the first and provide no location for the sec-
ond, it's implied they continue to cheat.
The complex question fallacy differs from leading questions, which suggest the
desired answer but don't involve logical fallacies. Leading questions are often
used in legal settings to direct witnesses' testimonies.

3.3 False Dichotomy Fallacy
ሁለት ምርጫ ብቻ መስጥት ነው
The fallacy of false dichotomy occurs when a disjunctive premise presents two
unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer elimi-
nates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
While the argument may be logically valid, it is unsound because the premise is
false or probably false.
Example: "Classical democracy originated either from the Gada System or from
Athens."
- By presenting only two options, the arguer suggests that democracy couldn't
have originated elsewhere, which is unlikely.
- If one of the alternatives in the disjunctive premise is true, the fallacy is not com-
mitted. For instance, "Either Abay River is in Ethiopia or it is in South Africa" is a
valid and sound argument if it's true that the river is not in South Africa.
- False dichotomy is also known as "false bifurcation" and the "either-or fallacy."
3.4 Suppressed Evidence Fallacy
አስፈላጊ ማስረጃዎችን ችላ ይላል
The suppressed evidence fallacy occurs when an argument ignores important

evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and leads to a different con-
clusion. This fallacy is a type of presumption fallacy because it presumes that the
premises are both true and complete when they are not.
Examples:
1. Argument: Somalia is a good place for investment because of cheap raw ma-
terials, labor, market, and a port. ignores: there is instability in Somalia which is
not good for investment
- Advertisements frequently commit the suppressed evidence fallacy by omitting

negative features of the product being advertised, leading consumers to draw
fallacious conclusions.

Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy
Fallacies of Ambiguity: Equivocation and Amphiboly
Fallacies of ambiguity occur when an argument relies on ambiguous language

in either the premises or the conclusion.
- Equivocation: This fallacy occurs when a word or phrase shifts meaning within
an argument, leading to a false conclusion.
- Amphiboly: This fallacy arises from ambiguous sentence structure, leading to

different interpretations of the statement.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy: Composition and Division
Fallacies of grammatical analogy occur when arguments mimic the structure of

valid arguments but contain flawed reasoning or incorrect premises.
- Composition: This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts is also true of the
whole.
- Division: This fallacy assumes that what is true of the whole is also true of its
parts.
4.1 Equivocation
ከአንድ በላይ ተርጉም ያለውን ቃል እንደገና መጠቀም ነው (በሁለቱም ትርጉም ቅያይሮ)
- Definition: The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in

different senses within an argument, leading to a false or misleading conclusion.
- Example: "When I asked you if I should turn left, you said right. Therefore, I was
correct and you cannot get mad at me."
right can be 'correct' (ትክክል) or 'right' (ቀኝ)
Look for shifts in the meaning of key terms within an argument. Pay attention to
how words are used and whether they maintain consistent meanings through-
out.
- Importance: Identifying equivocation is crucial for accurately assessing argu-

ments, as it reveals deceptive reasoning based on ambiguous word usage.

4.2 Amphiboly
የተሳሳተ ትርጓሜ መስጠት
- Definition: The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when an ambiguous statement is

misinterpreted by the arguer, leading to a faulty conclusion based on this misin-
terpretation. The ambiguity often arises from a grammatical error or punctuation
mistake in the original statement.
Examples
"Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that Habtom
has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes."
who is 'he' in this sentence? it can be both. The arguer concluded its Habtom,
which made it a fallacy
Look for syntactical ambiguities in statements, such as dangling modifiers, am-

biguous pronoun antecedents, or unclear phrasing. Assess whether the arguer's
conclusion relies on a specific interpretation of the ambiguous statement.
5.1 Composition
በያንዳንዱ አባል ምክንያት ሙሉ ቡዱኑ ላይ መደምደም ነው
- Definition: The fallacy of composition occurs when the conclusion of an argu-

ment relies on incorrectly transferring an attribute from the parts of something
onto the whole. It erroneously assumes that if the parts have a certain attribute,
then the whole also has that attribute.
Examples:
1. "Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the

team as a whole is excellent."
Recognizing composition is essential for avoiding faulty generalizations about

wholes based on the attributes of their parts. It underscores the need to carefully
evaluate whether attributes can legitimately be transferred from parts to the
whole.

5.2 Division
የComposition ተቃራኒ ነው. ሙሉ ቡዱን ላይ ያለ ነገር አባላቱ ላይ መደምደም ነው
- Definition: The fallacy of division occurs when the conclusion of an argument

relies on incorrectly transferring an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its
parts (or members). It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition.
Examples
"Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium

and chlorine, are non-poisonous."
Recognizing division is crucial for avoiding erroneous assumptions about the at-
tributes of individual parts based on the characteristics of the whole. It empha-
sizes the need to critically evaluate whether attributes can legitimately be trans-
ferred from wholes to their parts.
-THE END -
This document is prepared for premium users in @NoteHeroBot
Thank you for being premium user.
if you have any question contact @cushydev

Logic - Chapter 5 (premium)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic - Chapter 5 (premium)

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 - Chapter 5 (premium)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

hange E hange E

Logic And Critical Thinking - Chapter Five

Four Rules for a Good Argument:

Fallacies: Mistakes in reasoning or creating illusions that make a bad argument

Remember, an argument is strong if it follows all rules and avoids fallacies.

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

Remember to analyze both the structure and content of an argument to identify

Definition: Mistakes in reasoning that can't be identified by analyzing the

Identification: Focus on the meaning of words, how statements are constructed,

Analysis: Invalid due to different meanings of "plants" in premises.

2. Fallacies of Weak Induction

5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

Distinguishing between genuine evidence and emotional appeal helps identify

1.1 Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) ...

Definition: When an arguer threatens harm to coerce someone into accepting a

- Threatening physical or psychological harm to force compliance.

- Threats are used to support the conclusion, which is logically unrelated.

Purpose: To psychologically pressure acceptance by hiding the lack of logical

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

Definition: Trying to support a conclusion by evoking pity in the audience, even if

- Pity-inducing circumstances are used to support a conclusion without logical

- Compassion is a natural response, but it doesn't always justify a conclusion.

- Legitimate: Helping those in situations beyond their control.

Purpose: To distract from logical analysis by appealing to emotions.

1.3 Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

Definition: Trying to persuade by appealing to desires for acceptance, esteem,

- Emotions of acceptance are used to support a conclusion, not logical.

To exploit the desire for acceptance or approval to sway opinions.

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

"ትክክል ነው ምክንያቱም ብዙ ሰዎች ተስማምተዋል" ብሎ..ማሳመን

Definition: Appeals to the desire to belong to a group or community by suggest-

- "Most people in Ethiopia support child circumcision, so you should too."

- Assumes that because the majority believes or does something, it is correct.

- Encourages conformity rather than critical thinking.

1.3.2 Appeal to Vanity

"ታዋቂ ሰዎች የሚጠቀሙበትን ከተጠቀምክ ትደነቃለክ" ብሎ..ማሳመን

Definition: Links a product or idea to someone famous or respected, suggesting

- Appeals to the desire to be like admired individuals.

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

Definition: Appeals to the desire to be seen as superior to others, often by sug-

- Exploits the desire to feel superior to others, particularly by associating with a

- Appeals to the idea that being different or exclusive is desirable.

- Encourages purchasing or belief adoption based on the desire for exclusivity or

Purpose: To persuade by tapping into the desire to be seen as unique or superior.

Sometimes, people accept certain ideas or policies because they believe

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

Definition: When instead of addressing an argument, someone attacks the per-

Explanation: This happens when one person responds to an argument by focus-

Types: There are three forms of this fallacy:

1. Ad Hominem Abusive: Attacks the person directly.

2. Ad Hominem Circumstantial: Attacks the person's circumstances or interests.

@NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium @NoteheroBot Premium

ክርክር የሚያደርገውን ሰው በቃላት ማጥቃት (ስድብ)...

Definition: When someone responds to an argument by verbally attacking the

Premise: The person making the argument is of bad character.

Conclusion: Therefore, their argument should not be accepted.

1.4.2 Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

Definition: When someone tries to discredit an argument by pointing out circum-

Explanation: Instead of addressing the argument directly, this fallacy focuses on