Chapter Five

Informal Fallacies
Introduction
A fallacy in general can be defined as an error in reasoning. Moreover, fallacies can broadly be divided
into two types, formal and informal. And, informal fallacies, which are the main focuses of this chapter,
can be categorized into five groups considering some basic communality vested up on them. For that
matter, fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity,
and fallacies of grammatical analogy are the main groups, which will seriously be considered in this
chapter. Finally, the role of fallacies in the discipline of Law will be one of the areas of focus in this
chapter.

Fallacies can broadly be classified into two types: formal and informal. Though the focus of this chapter
is on informal fallacies, it sounds logical to raise some preparatory notions about both of these
classifications. For that matter formal fallacies are committed when the form or logical structure of
arguments are violated where as informal fallacies are committed when the content of an argument is
problematic.
Formal fallacies, which are committed because of structural defects of arguments, involve an explicit use
of an invalid deductive argument forms. And, a deductive argument is invalid and fallacious formally
usually because the premises fail to support the conclusion with strict necessity or when the premises of
an argument are true and followed by a false conclusion. In other words, through identifying the form or
structure of invalid deductive arguments, one can detect those formal fallacies. And, like informal
fallacies, formal fallacies may appear or resemble correct though they are not in reality.
Moreover, formal fallacies can further be classified in to two types: fallacies of propositional argument
and fallacies of syllogistic arguments. As to those which are included in the first classification, one can
find fallacies of; illicit conversion, illicit contraposition, illicit contrary, illicit sub-alteration and
existensial fallacy. And, these categories will be discussed in the chapter, which covers categorical
proposition (Chapter 4). And, those, which are included in the second classification, (fallacies of
syllogistic arguments) are fallacies such as: fallacies of categorical syllogism, fallacies of disjunctive
syllogism and fallacies of hypothetical syllogism. And the details of these fallacies are included in the
fourth and fifth chapters.
Informal fallacies, which are the focus of this chapter, are errors in reasoning which are detected through
examining the content of an argument, not through detecting the form of an argument. And, informal
fallacies may appear in both deductive and inductive arguments.
Though there are very many informal fallacies, there is no absolute consensus on how can they be
classified. However, through considering some communality among them, informal fallacies can be
divided in to five groups: Fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption,
fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of grammatical analogy.
3.1 Fallacies of Relevance
When an argument is based on premises, which are not relevant to its conclusion, and that therefore,
cannot possibly establish its truth, fallacies of relevance will be committed. In other words, those
fallacies, which are included under relevance, involve premises, which are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion, but for psychological reasons, they may seem relevant. In any case, all fallacies of relevance
commonly share the following basic features:
 The premises of an argument are logically irrelevant to the conclusion of an argument;
however, they are psychologically relevant as they seem correct or persuasive.
 The connection between the premises and the conclusion is emotional, not logical.
Thus, the task of distinguishing genuine and logical evidence from various forms of emotional appeal is
mandatory to identify those fallacies of relevance. And, there are around eight fallacies under fallacy of
relevance to which their details are as follows:

1
1. Appeal to force or stick fallacy (Argumentum ad Baculum). To understand fallacy of relevance, it
sounds logical to go back to the etymological origin of the word Baculum. The word Baculam is
originated from Latin, which means ‘Staff’, which is a symbol of power. And it basically implies
that ad beculum fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion is defended through possessing physical or
psychological threats to those who do not accept it. In other words, logical evidences are replaced by
implicit as well as explicit threats or pressures on the audiences to make them accept the arguer’s
conclusion. Thus, an arguer will commit appeal to force fallacy when,
S/he imposes her/his position through employing threats of force or any psychological intimidation in its
premises so as to make the audiences or readers accept her/his conclusion. This is achieved through
indicating that some danger will be happen on those who do not accept the position. But, those
psychological as well as physical threats do not have any logical relevance; threats that are emotional
appeals with no logical foundation.

Examples:
a. Child to its Playmates: Arsenal is the best football club in the world, if you don’t accept this, I
am going to call my brother and he will through you out!
b. Wife to husband: I deserve a weekend in Langano and if you don’t’ agree to take me there; I am
going to pack up the kinds and leave.
Would you comment on the above two fallacious arguments
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam )
The word ‘Misericordiam’ is originally from Latin which literally means ‘a pitying heart’ which in turn
implies the request of someone to others so as to get mercy, sympathy or any a kind of excuse. Thus an
appeal to pity fallacy basically occurs when an arguer tries to pose a conclusion by evoking pity from the
listeners or readers. In other words, the fallacy is committed when the emotional appeal which raises the
pity of the listeners or readers replace logical evidences or justifications.
Examples:
a. an attorney to the judge; Members of the jury, I realize there is a good deal of evidence that these
two brothers killed their parents. But they are now orphans. They have no one to take care of them.
They must now face the cruel world afraid and alone. Surely they are not guilty of these heinous
crimes.
c. A Student to her professor; Professor Kebede, it would be wrong for you to flunk me for
cheating. I am a single mother, and to provide for my two kids. I have to work three jobs.
At the end of the day, I am absolutely exhausted, and after I drag my weary body home. I
have neither the time nor the energy to study.

Would you comment on the above two fallacious arguments?

3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum).
Naturally, every one of us wants to be accepted, loved, and esteemed by others. However, the problem
lies on how (is that through appealing to emotion or through forwarding rational justifications or
evidences) can we secure this desire. And, argument ad populum, which appeals to emotion, is usually
employed by speakers and writers so as to get acceptance from others. This is usually the case when
propagandists and demagogues deliver their speech to the crowds or public. In other words, these public
figures usually commit appeal to people fallacy since they forward premises with contents of emotive and
expressive languages and devices so as to raise the Mob mentality of the crowds and make the crowds
accept their side or conclusion. Such an effort in an argument replaces the laborious task of presenting
evidences and justifications with some logically irrelevant appeals to emotion, which ultimately results in
the fallacy concerned.
The speeches of Adolph Hitler and Bonito Mussolini, for example, in the Second World War were
accompanied by emotional devices intended to raise the enthusiasm, excitement, and anger of the German
and Italian people. These political figures or propagandists were effective in manipulating the emotional

2
support of their respective crowds in the name of patriotism on their fight against the allies. Moreover,
arguments ad populum are now to be found in advertising industries in the sense that every attempt in the
industry is made to associate some products being advertised with things of which we can be expected to
approve strongly, or which excite us favorably.
Thus to understand appeal to people fallacy, there are two approaches: direct and indirect approaches.
The fallacy will be committed directly when the arguer, addressing a large group of people through
writing or speech, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowds so as to win acceptance or to raise
the mob mentality from them. As it has been stated before, political candidates for election, military
leaders and other public figures usually employ propaganda so as to raise their subject and make them
accept their conclusion. In other words, these propagandists, in one way or another, directly penetrate or
manipulate the crowds’ consciousness with relentless appeals to emotions of any kind.
Examples:
A. A leader of demonstration to his/her followers: “Fellow citizens! Today we are threatened with the loss
of our sacred to bear arms. A pack or gutless, liberal politicians wants to outlaw the sale of handguns.
But they won’t get away with it. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution! Our blessed fore
fathers created this right and bestowed it on all Americans. Protect the constitution! Hear our cry! Down
with the gutless Pinkos!”
B. A political leader who opposes federalism would propagate as: “Today the prospect of creeping
federalism threatens to rib each of us of our cherished way of life. Government is invading every aspect of
our lives. The feds want to tell us what to think and how to speak. They want to tell us how to raise our
kids and run our schools. Enough of this mind control! Abolish the federal income tax.”
Would you comment on the above two fallacious arguments?
On the other hand, ad populum fallacy is committed indirectly in the sense that the arguer directs his or
her appeal not to the crowd as a whole directly, rather to some aspects of their relationship to the
crowd. And this is also an illogical attempt to exploit the emotion of the people for same private motives.
This approach is usually common in advertising industry. Most of the time, products are advertised in
association with things, which excite us favorably. Fore example, food items could be advertised with
strength, youth fullness and good health and New Mobile technologies or automobiles could be advertised
as beauty, dignity and, such advertisements have the power to catch up the feeling of the audiences as
buyers emotionally associate themselves with the strength, dignity and health which are wrongly fulfilled
by the products. Thus commercial advertisements usually attempts to attract customer’s emotional
approval for the purpose of getting purchasers informing that the products are ‘comfortable’, ‘best
selling’; ‘delicate’, etc. These emotively charged terminologies in advertisement industry make the
customers not to raise questions about the durability, quality, expiring date, etc…Thus reaching a certain
conclusion based on the premises of such advertisement is fallacious. However there are three types of
indirect approach to ad populum fallacy; appeal to bandwagon, appeal to vanity and appeal to snobbery.
A. Appeal to Bandwagon emphasizes that the majority’s choice is the correct one and urges the
audiences to join them. In other words, if some argue as you will be left behind or left out of the
group/majority if you do not use the product.
Example:
Sure, this is a very fantastic gum with lovely flavor. That is why the majority of the people in Addis
Ababa chew it than any other gums.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
A. Appeal to Vanity is committed when an arguer associates products with celebrities and popular
figures such as artists, athletes, footballers, etc. and informs the audiences that if they buy the
item they will also be admired too.
Example:
You have got to see Serawit Fikre’s latest film immediately. It is breaking the country’s film records in
terms of audiences, and every one is talking about it.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

3
 B. Appeal to snobbery committed when an arguer propounds the position that “if you want to be a
member of the selected few you should use this product” i.e.-products are usually associated with
persons with high social positions (Business man, Kings, queens, and princes).
Example:
Fiendship café, no doubt, is the best café in Addis Ababa. That is why distinguished persons
like Teddy Afro, Mulualam Tadesse... are always there on weekends. Come and enjoy your
weekends at Friendship café!!!
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
In any case, the common nature of both direct and indirect approaches holds the position that “if you want
to be accepted or included in the group loved or esteemed…, you should accept X, Y, and Z as true.”
Thus, the model of the fallacy can shortly be stated as:
Because of the majority accepted it or because admired peoples are using it, you should also accept it
or you should also use it.
4. Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
As to its etymological origin, the word ‘ad hominem’ is from Latin that means “to the man” and this in
turn implies that it is not the subject matter or the idea rather it is the person who raises the idea who is
being refuted. In other words, instead of responding to the argument forwarded by Mister ‘X’, Mister ‘Y’
tries to attack against Mister ‘X’ himself. Here, mister ‘Y’ clearly commits argument against the person
fallacy. And there are three types of the fallacy of ad hominem:
A. Fallacy of ad hominem Abusive
This is the fallacy committed when an arguer engages in direct personal attacks or abuses against his
opponent and makes them as grounds to reject his claim. Thus, rejecting our opponent by directing our
attack towards his personality rather than the contents of his argument will result in the fallacy concerned.
Example:
Ato Gebeyhu has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody should listen to his
argument. Ato Gebeyhu is a Slob who cheats on his wife, beats his wife, beats his kinds, and
never pays his bills on time.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
B. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial
This is the fallacy committed by an arguer who tries to discredit his opponent’s arguments by alluding to
certain circumstances that affect them (his opponents). In other words, this fallacy is not directed on
attacking the person, rather on the circumstance he belongs.
When someone argues that his opponents’ argument is false since they, in that position or state of mind,
could be expected to raise such claims or their circumstances make it impossible for them to sincere or to
tell the truth.
Example:
Ato Mohammed has just argued that we replace the public school system with private education.
But of course he argues that way. He has no kids, and he does not want to pay any more taxes for
public education.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
C. Fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque (you too).
The word “tu quoque” is originally form Latin which literally means ‘you too’ or ‘you did it too’ which in
turn implies that the arguer’s action is not consistent or it is contrary with what he argues for. Thus the
fallacy is committed when we argue that our opponent’s claim is false since his/her argument is contrary
with what he has said or done before.
Example:
Ato Gemechu has just given us reason why we should place more emphasis on family values.
But he has no business talking. Just a week ago he got divorce.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
5. Accident

4
This is the fallacy committed by an arguer who intends to wrongly apply general rule to specific case that
cannot cover the former. In other words, this fallacy is committed when the general rule, principle or truth
is wrongly applied to particular instance or situation.
Example:
Children should obey their parents. Therefore, little Abush should follow his alcoholic
fathers orders to drop out of school and get a job. Would you comment on the above
fallacious argument?
6. Straw Man
This fallacy occurs when some one distorts his/her opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily
attacking or demolishing it. In other words,, when someone distorts and substitutes the original version of
his/her opponent’s argument by a deliberately weakened version and tries to attack the distorted one, s/he
commits straw man fallacy.
Example:
Dr. Kebede has just argued against affirmative action for women. It seems what he is saying is
that women should stay out of the work place altogether. Just keep them barefoot and pregnant.
That is what Dr. Kebede wants. Well! I think we are all smart enough to reject his argument.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
7. Missing the point (Ignorantio Elenchi)
Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance, which occurs when the premise of an argument
supports the concussion, which has nothing to do with correct conclusion. In other words, when someone
draws a conclusion, which completely misses the point, s/he commits missing the point fallacy. In any
case the fallacy, which is represented by the Latin word, ignoratio elenchi, which means ignorance of the
proof, implies that the argument has a problem of the logical implication of the premise.
Examples:
A. Haile Gebresilassie has won many cross country championships. He is still dedicated,
hard worker, disciplined, courageous and determined to win marathon. Therefore,
Ethiopians should save their lives from HIV-AIDS.
B. Wage earners cannot currently live on the minimum wage. Therefore, the minimum
wage should be abolished.
Would you comment on the above fallacious arguments?
8. Red Herring
Red herring fallacy will be committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the listeners or readers by
changing the original subject to some totally different issue without the listeners or readers notifying it. In
other words, this fallacy is an attempt to divert the attention of audiences to a totally different issue. The
fallacy is some times called “Off the track” fallacy since an arguer who commits this fallacy ignores the
topic under discussion and shifts the attention of his audiences to another issue. All at a sudden, an arguer
changes the subject to a completely different idea and makes a conclusion upon this changed idea. In any
case the model for red herring fallacy is as follows:
An idea under discussion will be changed in to a totally different issue and then the conclusion will be
drawn based on this changed subject.
Example:
Ato Shiferaw, a senior official in water resource management, has argued that clean water Act
should never be weakened. But the point is that water is one of the most common substances on
earth. Over two-thirds of our planet’s surface is covered with water, and massive amounts of
frozen water cover both poles. If the ice caps were ever to melt, ocean levels would rise several
feet. Obviously the official has been misinformed.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
3. 2 Fallacies of Weak induction
Those fallacies included in weak induction occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion; rather it is because the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong
enough. Those fallacies under this category provide shared evidences to the conclusion. The evidences;

5
however, are not good to make any reasonable person believe the conclusion. And, like those fallacies
included in relevance, fallacies of weak induction employ emotional grounds to support the conclusion.
At any rate, fallacies of weak induction are commonly characterized by an argument with:
 Its premises are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion,
 Its premises probably support the conclusion and they are accompanied by
emotional appeals.

And, there are at least six fallacies included in weak induction with their details as follows:
9. Appeal to unqualified authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam )
It is customary that individuals need to get information; suggestion, comment, opinion and advice form
others so as to achieve a certain conclusion. However, there are cases where those individuals who are
entitled to deliver information might not be trustworthy because:
 They lack the expertise in a certain profession,
 They might be biased or prejudiced,
 They might have the motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation”.
Thus, the fallacy of unqualified authority is committed when we attempt to support our claim by:
 Citing the statement of another person who is not an authority in the field of specialization.
 Referring the judgment of an authority that is likely to be biased.
 Referring a person who has the habit of telling lies or disseminating wrong information.
Example:
Omer, who is a well-known astronomer, says that AIDS epidemic is caused by a
perverse alignment of the planets, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Therefore, we can only conclude that all of these efforts to find a cure for AIDS are a
waste of time.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

10. Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
This fallacy is committed when the lack to evidence or proof for something is used to support the
conclusion. In other words, when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved in one
way or other about something and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing. Thus,
one’s ignorance, lack of evidence, knowledge or information about something definitely supports the
conclusion in appeal to ignorance fallacy. In any case, ad ignorantiam fallacy will be committed when:
 Some one argues that something is the case (true) because no one has proved to be false.
 Someone argues that something is not the case (false) because no one has proved it to be
true.
Example -
Nobody has ever proved the existence of ghosts. Therefore, we have no alternative but to
conclude that ghosts are mere figments of the imagination.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
However, there are exceptional cases where appeal to ignorance fallacy will not be committed:
A. If qualified researchers or team of scientists investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of
expertise and found nothing about it, it is at least an inductively strong argument though it is not a
deductively valid one.
A. There are also cases where there is not always necessary that investigators have special
qualifications. The kinds of qualifications needed depended on the situation that the more ability
to see and report is sometimes sufficient.
Another important exception with appeal to ignorance is on legal procedure, Legal procedures
recognize that a defendant is innocent unless prove guilty. Appeal to ignorance fallacy is correct
in legal procedure; however, when a judge pronounces a verdict of no guilty, he/she is not
claiming that the defendant did not commit the act as charged. It is only claiming that the
evidence is not weightily enough to prove such a charge.

6
 11. Hasty generalization (Converse Accident)
The fallacy of hasty generalization, which is the opposite of accident, is committed when an arguer tries
to generalize about a thing or an event based on insufficient evidence; vary limited information and
unrepresentative samples about it. In other words, drawing a conclusion or generalization based on
unrepresentative or small evidence or information will result in an argument with hasty generalization
fallacy. And the fallacy is usually committed by individuals who develop a negative attitude or prejudice
towards others’ belief, language, political position, ethnic origin, color and others.
Example: A reporter in the local newspaper exaggerated her story just to make it more exciting, and a
reporter on the evening news got her facts mixed up. The conclusion is apparent that you just cannot trust
the news media today. Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
However, the mere fact that a sample may be small does not necessarily guarantee that the fallacy of
converse accident occurs. Other factors sometimes make the argument to be strong though its samples are
small.
Example:
Ten Milligrams of Substance Z was fed to four mice, and within two minutes all four went into shock and
died. Probably substance Z, in this amount, is fatal to the average mice.
In the above argument the fallacy of hasty generalization is not committed, would you justify this?
12. False Cause
False cause fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that properly does not exist, an attempt to suppose that ‘X’ causes ‘Y’ where
as ‘X’ probably does not cause ‘Y’ at all. In other words, the fallacy is committed when someone infers
causal explanations from premises, which cannot provide sufficient evidence to it. And, the fallacy can
further be divided in to three types:
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
As a Latin phrase post hoc erogo propter hoc fallacy may be translated as “after this, therefore on account
of this.” And, the fallacy is shortly named as post hoc fallacy and it is committed when we arrive at a
certain conclusion by claiming that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes in time. A
particular event ‘X’ is caused by event ‘Y’ merely because ‘X’ follows ‘Y’ or ‘Y’ precedes ‘X’
chronologically.
Though chronological relationship is one of the indicators of causal relationship, it can never be the only
one as there are additional inputs such as spatial relations, economic, political and social factors should be
considered so as to arrive at a definite assertion about the thing or event concerned. Thus, drawing a
certain conclusion only because of temporal precedence would not be logically sufficient and it will result
in post hoc fallacy to occur.
Post hoc fallacy usually occurs in cultural superstitions. Particularly, in our cases when we encounter
some accidental misfortunes, we usually associate them with bad lucks. However, such kinds of assertion
are not logically convincing as they confuse consequences with temporal precedence.
Example:
Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Therefore, since I’m dying to talk to somebody right
now, I should jump in the shower.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
B. Non Causa pro causa fallacy
The Latin phrase non causa pro causa can be translated as ‘not the cause for the cause’. The fallacy is
committed when some one argues that something is the cause of an effect when it is not in reality and
confusion occurs between cause and effect.
Example:
There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before and more HIV victims ever before;
so, to eliminate the epidemic we must abolish the church.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
C. Oversimplified cause fallacy

7
Oversimplified cause fallacy is committed when relevant causal antecedents of an event are
oversimplified by introducing factors insufficient to the account of the effect. And, it will be committed
when the roles of one or more of those factors are deliberately or intentionally overemphasized at the
expense of others.
Example:
Why most students fail in logic is because teachers do not come to class regularly.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
13. Slippery Slope fallacy
Slippery slope fallacy is a Variety of false cause fallacies. In other words when false cause fallacy (an
argument that considers an event ‘X’ is the cause of event ‘Y’ simply because ‘X’ happens before ‘Y’)
takes place in series of events or actions, slippery slope fallacy will occur. If an arguer assumes that series
of events happen or follow one from the other as a result of the first cause in a series, it will result in
slippery slope fallacy. This is of the fact that because it is logically mistaken for someone to consider a
particular action or event (usually the first one) in series of events causes for series of consequences. In
other words, considering the first event, action or cause responsible for all events or actions in series of
events or actions is not convincing.
Example:-
It is not a good idea to put your child in a day care center. Separation from parents causes
isolation and alienation soon the child becomes incapable of relating to other children, and this
inability to relate causes depression. As the child gets older, the depression leads to psychosis.
The final result is either suicide or a life wasted in a mental institution.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

14. Fallacy of Weak analogy

Fallacy of weak analogy is committed basically when the analogy or similarity between two things or
situations is not strong enough to support the conclusion to be drawn. In other words, weak analogy
fallacy will be committed when the significant differences between two or more things compared are
ignored or when two contrasted things are considered alike only in unimportant ways.
Example:
No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why should anyone be expected to get
married without premarital sex?
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
However, there will be a strong or correct link between the premises and the conclusion so that the
argument is good or it is with no fallacy when properties cited are relevant between two or more things
and when the differences between the objects have taken in to account.
3.3 Fallacies of Presumption
To presume means to take something for granted or to assume a given idea as true or correct which in fact
needs further proof, explanation or evidence. And, the fallacy of presumption will be committed when the
assumption given in the premise is not supported by proof but the arguer maintains that it does not need
proof and s/he invites his/her audiences accept it as it is. Moreover, the fallacy contains tricky and
confusing expressions for the purpose of concealing the wrong assumptions stated in the premise. In any
case, fallacies of presumption are usually characterized by:

 Drawing a conclusion from statements that they are questionable.

 The conclusion or consequence of an unjustifiable assumption and presumption with
their details.
15. Begging the question (Petitio Principii)
Begging the question fallacy basically occurs when someone uses some form of phraseology, which tends
to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise, and, if the audience is deceived into this
argument as sound, when in facts it many not be.

8
In any case, there are two requirements to be fulfilled for this fallacy to occur:
 The argument must be valid,
 Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionably true character
of a key premise.
Moreover, though the kind of phraseology used differs from argument to argument, it is inevitable for the
conclusion to support the questionable premise. One way of doing so is through formulating premise and
conclusion of an argument in two slightly different ways; however, they have essentially the same
meaning.
Example:
We can be certain that this photo is of Emperor Tewodros because the person in the photo looks
just like him.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
Here, the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing so that they both are true and valid as well.
However, the logical question to be raised here is whether the premise is true regardless of the context of
the argument i.e. the truth of the premise is unavoidably questionable. But, when the premise is preceded
by the conclusion, the alleged truth is strengthened; however such strength is attributed to the
psychological illusion that results from saying the same thing in two slightly different ways. And, when a
single proposition is repeated in two slightly different ways without the repetition becoming obvious, the
suggested truth of the proposition is reinforced. And, begging the question can be presented in chains of
arguments. And, the final conclusion will be stated or will be having the same meaning with that of the
first premise. Thus, begging the question is usually called circular reasoning that:
 The premise is restated in the conclusion in different phrases or words in reality, or
 The premise is not essentially different from the conclusion.
And, circular argumentation as a fallacious reasoning is not explicitly detected as it is presented in:
 Chain of intervening sentences,
 Ignoring entirely questionable idea in the premise.
16. Complex Question
One commits the fallacy of complex question when s/he asks two or more questions in a way that makes
it appear that only one question has been asked. When we forward question to someone we make
presuppositions of answers within it. Asking questions to respondents to answer it genuinely without
being confused and tricked is not wrong. But, when the question is complex and aimed only at trapping
the respondent to acknowledge something that he/she is not willing to tell, it becomes fallacious.
A Complex question is not an argument as such, but involves an implicit argument and this becomes
explicit when the response is added to the complex question. Most complex questions are familiar devices
to lawyers and judges when examining defendants to admit crimes. To see how a complex question can
prejudge an issue in the form of a question, look in to the following example:
Example: Have you stopped in involving such crimes?
Here, what the defendant can answer is either “Yes”, or “No”. And if he answers “Yes”, so it implies that
he has previously been involved in such crimes so that he is guilty. And if he answers “No” it means he
has continued in criminal ways, and is guilty. Therefore, he would be trapped in both cases. Depending on
the answer given by the defendant the prosecuting attorney may therefore establish arguments like:
a. “You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways. You answered, ‘Yes’. It follows that,
you have previously been a criminal.”
b. “You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways, you answered ‘No’. It follows that, you
have previously continued involving in crimes”
However, in both arguments the prosecuting attorney may establish are fallacious precisely because no
information is really being sought. The questions are actually formulating hidden arguments in the
complex questions.
17. False dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy can be otherwise called as “false bifurcation”, “either… or”, or “false
dilemma” fallacy. And this fallacy is committed when the arguer insists that only two alternatives are

9
possible in a given situation (when in fact the alternatives presented are not exhaustive i.e. because more
alternatives are still possible). In other words, the fallacy of false dichotomy occurs whenever one is faced
with a very limited numbers of alternatives, and when one attempts to bring a premature end to a debate
by declaring a dilemma when none exists. Other alternatives may be possible, or other courses of action
can be persuaded. Thus, one commits the fallacy of false dilemma when he poses a restrictive set of
undesirable alternatives when other legitimate alternatives may be possible. And, the fallacious nature of
false dichotomy lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into thinking that the
disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives, and is therefore true by necessity.
Example:
Either we elect EPRDF, or the country’s fate will be worsened. The choice should be obvious.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
18. Suppressed Evidence
This is an inductive argument that overlooks an important piece of evidence (premise) that if it were
considered, the conclusion to be drawn would be very different from the one drawn. In other words, this
fallacy is committed when the argument ignores some important evidence/s that outweigh/s the presented
evidence and entails a different conclusion. The evidence that is suppressed must be so important that it
outweighs the presented evidence, and it must require a different conclusion than the one drawn. Usually
suppression is intentional as the arguer deliberately omits the key evidence (premise) and instead
emphasizes a certain point in order to hide the relevant premise that would entail totally different point.
Example:
Addis Ababa University deserves to be one of the best Universities in Africa as it has
impressive buildings, beautiful gates, and an attractive fountain.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
Fallacies of ambiguity
Two fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the conclusion
(or both). The fallacies of ambiguity include Equivocation and Amphiboly
19. Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase in a single argument are used in two different
senses or connotations which in turn leads to a conclusion which is not supported by its premises. In other
words, this fallacy leads toward unintended conclusion by making a word or words to have two different
meanings in a single argument. Thus, when a single word in the premise of an argument is used in two
different contexts and when these two contexts of a single word are wrongly assumed as one or similar in
the conclusion, the fallacy of equivocation will occur.
Example:
Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore same triangles are
ignorant.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
20. Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when someone misinterprets a statement which is ambiguous because of
some structural defects and draws a conclusion based on such misinterpretation. And, someone other than
the arguer usually asserts the original statement. Moreover, the structural defect is usually a mistake in
grammar, punctuation, a pronoun, an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, careless arrangements of words
and the like. Because of these and other related defects, the statement may be interpreted or understood in
two distinct senses. The arguer usually selects the unintended interpretation and draws a conclusion based
up on it.
Example:
Beza said that she painted her picture hanging on the wall of her bedroom. Obviously
Beza is quite an acrobat.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
Contracts and wills are areas where a case of amphiboly causes serious problems or controversies.
Ambiguous statements and alternative interpretations would lead to different conclusions.

10
There are two important ways in which amphiboly differ from equivocation. First, equivocation is always
because of ambiguity of meaning of one or more words; however, amphiboly involves structural defects
in a statement. Another important difference between the two is that amphiboly usually involves a
mistake committed by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made by some one else, where
as the ambiguity in equivocation is typically the arguer’s own creation.
3.5 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
21. Composition
The erroneous transference of an attribute from parts of something onto the whole as a base for the
conclusion of an argument will lead to the fallacy of composition to occur. In other words this fallacy
would occur when attributes of parts of a thing are wrongly applied or associated to the whole entity of a
thing. Thus, if an arguer argues as: what is true of each part of a whole is also true of the whole or what is
true of some parts of a whole is also true of the whole, s/he commits fallacy of composition.
Example:
Each atom in this table is invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, the table is invisible to the naked
eye.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
However, if there is a legitimate transference of an attribute from parts on to the whole, fallacy of
composition will never be occurred.
Example:-
Each atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.

22. Division
The fallacy of division is the exact opposite of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole,
division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (a class) onto its parts (members). Thus, the fallacy of
composition is committed when an arguer argues that what is true of a whole is also true of its parts or
what is true of a whole is also true of some of its parts.
Example
 Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas. Therefore, its two components, carbon and oxygen
must be non poisonous.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
However, such an illegitimate or erroneous transference of attribute from a whole or class onto its parts or
members is not always illegitimate or illogical.
Example:-
This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have
mass.

11