FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

1st Semester 2024/2025 Academic Session
Course Code: GST 211
Course Tittle: Logic, Philosophy and Human Existence
Course Status: Compulsory (2unit)
Course Duration: 2 hours per week
Lecturer and Author: Oguchukwu Temple O.
Week One
Topic: Fallacies and Types of Fallacies

Introduction
It is hoped that at the end of this unit, you should be able to:
Define and classify fallacies, Know major fallacies involving irrelevant premises
such as: Argument against the person, Straw man, Appeal to force, Appeal to the
people, Appeal to pity, Appeal to ignorance

Definition of Fallacy
A fallacy is an error in reasoning or argumentation that makes an argument invalid,
misleading, or deceptive. Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional and can
occur in various forms of communication, including spoken language, written
texts, and visual media.
There is no doubt that some errors in reasoning are so obvious that someone does
not need to be told. This is the case for instance if ;
One plus one equal two.
Therefore Nigeria is America.
But this is not the case all the time. In logic for instance, there are some errors in
reasoning that tend to be psychologically persuasive, logicians call such errors
fallacies.
Thus a fallacy is an error in reasoning that tends to be psychologically persuasive.
It is an invalid argument that has the deceptive appearance of being valid. There is
no universal classification of fallacies. But in most introductory text books in logic,
there has always been a tentative classification. Otakpor (2000) classifies is as
follows:

1. Formal/purely logical fallacy: In this kind of fallacy, the defect arises as a

result of lack of conformity with a type of valid argument. This happens for
instance, when the middle term is undistributed. Furthermore, these are errors in
reasoning that occur due to a flaw in the argument's logical structure. Examples
include:
- Ad Hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument)
- Straw Man (misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument)
- False Dilemma (presenting only two options when there are more)
2. Verbal or Semi-logical fallacy: In this form of fallacy, there is always a
sentence of some sort of valid forms of argument but not exactly because of a word
or words are used in different senses. This is most observable in the fallacies of
ambiguity.
3. Material / informal falacy: Here whether valid or not the argument is fallacies
because:
i)The premises are false
ii)Appeals are mainly to feelings
iii)There is no structure of argument at all
iv)Argument is not directed to the thesis in question. Informal Fallacies are also
errors in reasoning that occur due to a flaw in the argument's content or context.
Examples include:
- Appeal to Authority (using an authority's opinion as evidence)
- Appeal to Emotion (using emotions rather than logic to persuade)
- Slippery Slope (arguing that a particular action will inevitably lead to a series
of negative consequences).
4. Semantic Fallacies: These are errors in reasoning that occur due to a flaw in the
argument's language or meaning. Examples include:
- Equivocation (using a word or phrase with multiple meanings in a way that is
misleading or confusing)
- Ambiguity (using language that is unclear or open to multiple interpretations)
5. Psychological Fallacies: These are errors in reasoning that occur due to a flaw in
the argument's psychological appeal. Examples include:
- Appeal to Popularity (arguing that something is true or good because it is
popular)
- Appeal to Tradition (arguing that something is true or good because it has been
done a certain way for a long time)
6. Other Fallacies: There are many other types of fallacies that do not fit neatly into
one of the above categories. Examples include:
 - Red Herring (introducing a distracting or irrelevant point to divert attention
from the main argument)
- Begging the Question (assuming the truth of the conclusion one is trying to
prove)

A. Fallacies Involving Irrelevant Premises

Within informal fallacies there are fallacies involving, irrelevant premises, fallacies
involving ambiguity and fallacies involving unwarranted assumptions. The
difference between formal and informal fallacies is that, a formal fallacy always
involves the explicit use of an invalid form which is not the case with informal
fallacy. Fallacies involving irrelevant premises are kinds of informal fallacies
that involve the use of premises that are logically irrelevant to their conclusions,
but for psychological reasons, the premises appear relevant. The most common of
such informal fallacies are as follows:

I, Argument against the person (Ad Hominem fallacy)The main business of

this argument is to attack the person who advances an argument rather than
providing a rational critique of the argument itself. The attacker’s main objective is
to make it assertion acceptable, look at this for instance:
Mr. A: President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua of the Federal Territory of Nigeria will be
the
next African Union Chairman
Mr. B: Mr. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua is the president of one of the most corrupted
countries in the world. Therefore it is impossible for him to become the future
African union
chairman.
An argument against the person does not always involve outright verbal abuse.
Subtle ways are sometimes used but with the sole aim of discrediting an opponent
by suggesting that the opponent’s judgment is distorted by some factor in his or her
circumstances. This form of argument is sometimes called the circumstantial ad
hominem. For instance, during the celebration of their marriage, Mr. and Mrs.
Kule refused to serve beer to their guests. They claimed that no born again child of
God would either drink or serve beer to other persons. Here, you can see that Mr.
and Mrs. Kunle commit the circumstantial form of the argument and hominem
fallacy. You should always remember that the attack in the argument against the
person can take three forms:
i)Abusive ad hominem: direct personal attack on the opponent.
ii)Circumstantial ad hominem: attempt to discredit by calling attention to the
circumstances or situation of the opponent.
iii)Tu quoque: charges the opponent with hypocrisy or inconsistency.
b)Straw man: A straw man fallacy occurs whenever the arguer attacks a
misrepresentation of the opponent’s view. This fallacy is mostly used in policies. It
consistently makes use of rhetoric and Eristic. Eristic being the disputational art of
making weaker case the stronger one straw man fallacy usually occurs when the
arguer or attacker refuses to be fair and charitable in demands that we represent the
original accurately and charity demands that we put an argument in its best light
when we are confronted with interpretive choices. The debate over the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA) brought in an obvious example of straw man fallacy.
The entire text of the ERA is stated thus: “Equality of rights under the law shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”. The
Guide to American Law: Everyone’s legal Encyclopedia, Vol. 4 (New York: West,
1984, p. 352).
Backers of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) decided to misrepresent the text.
Their belief in total equality of the sexes also implies “equal pay for equal work”.
In their own understanding, 50 percent of the players in the National Football
league should be women. Moreover, there should no longer be separate public
bathrooms for men and women. Always remember that we can talk of straw man
fallacy when a view or argument is alleged to involve assumptions that does not or
need not involve. Look at the following questions: Susan advocates the legalization
of cocaine. But I cannot agree with any position based on the assumption that
cocaine is good for you and that a society of drug addicts can flourish. So, I
disagree with Susan. (Layman, 2002:125) This is a straw man fallacy because
obviously, one can consistently advocate the legalization of cocaine and yet believe
that cocaine is not good for people. Also bear in mind that sometimes persuasive or
biased definition can be used to set up a straw man fallacy. Professor Anthony
Flew, in his book captioned A Dictionary of Philosophy defines “empiricism” as
“the thesis that all knowledge or at least all knowledge of matters of facts (as
distinct from that of purely logical relations between concepts) is based on
experience (1979: p.104). However, partisans of straw man fallacy understand
empiricism as the view that nothing should be believed in unless it can be directly
observed. Now no one can see, hear, taste, smell or touch protons, electrons, or
quarks. So, while empiricists pretend to be advocates of science, their views in fact
rule out the most advanced physical science of our times (Layman,2002:126).
c)Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum Fallacy)Baculum: is a Latin word which stands
for “staff”. Here, Staff being a symbol of power. The ad baculum fallacy is mostly
used whenever a conclusion is defended by a threat to the well- being of those who
do not accept it. The threat can be physical, moral or psychological. It can be
implicit or explicit. Here is the case of a physical threat: Mr. Jones, you helped us
import the drugs. For this, the Boss is grateful. But now you are
entitled to 50 percent of the profits. The Boss says you are entitled to 10 percent.
Unless you see things the Boss’s way, you are going to have a very nasty accident.
So, you are entitled to 10 percent. Got it (Layman, 2002:127)You can see here that
there is no logical link the threatened “nasty accident” on the conclusion (“Jones is
entitled to 10 percent”.) But it is probable that the threat might induce Jones to
accept the conclusion. Here is the case of a psychological threat:
Listen, Valerie, I know you disagree with my view about the building project. You
have made your disagreement clear to everyone. Well, it time for you to see that
you are mistaken. Let me get right to the point. I know you have been lying to your
husband about where you go on Wednesday afternoons. Unless you want him to
know where you really go, its time for you to realize that I have been right about
the building project all long. You follow me? (Layman, 2002, p. 127)You can see
here that even though the threat to expose the lie has no relationship with the
building project, it may still work because fear is a strong motivator, and it can
influence, some one’s thinking.
d)Appeal to the People (Ad populum fallacy): Remember that “Populum” is a
Latin word with stands for “people” or “notion” so ad populum fallacy occurs
when you try to persuade someone or a group by appealing to the emotion, feeling,
sentiments of the people. This is mostly used in political campaigns, public debates
and advertising.
Here is a typical case of political campaign:
I look out at you all, and I tell you,
I am proud to be here.
Proud to belong to a party that stands for what is good for America. Proud to cast
my lot with the kind of people who make this nation great. Proud to stand with
men and women who can get our nation back on its feet. Yes, there are those who
criticize us, who label our view of trade agreements as “protectionist”. But when I
look at you hard- working people, I know we are right and the critics are wrong”
(Layman, 2002: 128). You can see that the sole purpose of this speech is to
persuade the crowd no matter what. It is fallacy because premises to the effect that
“I am proud to be associated with you” and “you are hard working people” are
irrelevant to the conclusion: “our view of trade agreements is right”. Also bear in
mind that you do not necessarily need to address a large group before you commit
the ad populum fallacy. Whatever you try to convince by appealing to the need of
or acceptance of your view by other people, you commit the ad populum fallacy.
Here is an example:
Ms Riley, are you saying that President Bush made a moral error when he decided
to go to war with Iraq? I cannot believe my ears. That is not how American, feel.
Not true Americans, anyway. You are an American, aren’t you Ms Riley? (Layman
2002: 128).
This is a fallacy because there is no logical connection between the fact that Ms
Riley is
an American therefore Iraq war must be justified.
e)Appeal to pity (Ad Misericordian Fallacy): Misericordian is a Latin word that
stands for “pity” or mercy”. So, ad misericordian fallacy is the attempt to support
a conclusion simply by evoking pity in one’s audience even though the statements
that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion. Take for instance the
case of a young man under trial for the murder of his parents who thereafter pleads
for leniency because he is now an orphan. (Otakpor, 2002:31). The appeal to pity is
mostly used by lawyers. The lawyer main objective is to get the court to accept the
conclusion that a client is innocent or at least to obtain a reduction in the measure
of punishment.
f)Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantian fallacy): The appeal to ignorance means
that the conclusion of an argument is proven simply because nobody has proved
the opposite. Here is a typical example:
1)After centuries trying, no one has been able to prove that reincarnation occurs.
So at this point, I think we can safely conclude that reincarnation does not occur
2) After centuries of trying, no one has been able to show that reincarnation does
not occur. Therefore, reincarnation occurs. You can see that this fallacy has its own
limits. It has not been proven may be erroneous. This logic cannot hold in scientific
matters mostly based on hypothesis and “wait and see” attitude. Besides it is not
mandatory to believe or disbelieve every statement we consider. Neutrality is a
logical attitude as well.
FALLACIES (PART TWO)
Fallacies involving ambiguity
There are some statements that involve a subtle confusion between two closely
related concepts and therefore become ambiguous. Logicians call it fallacy
involving ambiguity. We shall focus here only on the four (04) major fallacies of
ambiguity.
1). Equivocation: here a word is used differently from the authors original or
intended meaning thereby distorting the meaning of the argument. When you
change the meaning of a word or phrases in a line of argument so as to suit your
preferences, you commit the fallacy of equivocation. Eg. “Man is born free but
everywhere in chains” waooo! If that is the case, man is a male gender, then it
means that female gender is not inclusive. A women is not man therefore, a woman
is free everywhere.
2) Fallacy of Amphiboly
The fallacies of amphiboly and ambiguity are very similar. The only difference is
that in the fallacy of amphiboly, the double meaning is due to syntactic or sentence
structure such as a grammatical error or a mistake in punctuation. The fallacy of
amphiboly is more subtle and harder to detect than that of Equivocation. It mostly
occurs when we misinterpret someone’s original statement or intention. Here are
typical cases.
Professor N. Otakpor gave a lecture on homicide in the University of Benin Law
Auditorium. I gather that a lot of people have been murdered in that hall.
“If Nigeria under Yar’Adua goes to war against George Bush of America, then
Yar’Adua would destroy a populous nation” this is an amphibolic statement
because it has more than one acceptable meaning. America and Nigeria are both
populous nations. There is a fallacy of amphiboly here because it is not clear
whether the “populous nation” to be destroyed is America or Nigeria should
Yar’Adua “go to war against George Bush”.
3) Fallacy of composition
There are two major ways of committing the fallacy of composition. These are:
i) When a part is identified with the whole. That is, the parts have the attribute “X”
therefore the
whole has attribute “X”. For instance, each of the parts of this car engine is very
light, therefore the car engine is very light. Each player on the football team is
outstanding. Hence, the team itself is outstanding.The fallacy of composition is
committed here because even though the car engine is made up of very light parts
but when put together the car engine itself becomes very heavy. It is the same with
the football team. Even though each of the players is outstanding and there is a
lack of team work or insufficient opportunity to practice together the team as a
whole may not be outstanding.
ii) The second kind of the fallacy of composition is committed when there is
confusion between
the “distributive” and “collective” use of general terms, for example:
Elephants eat more than humans.
So, elephant taken as a group eat more than humans
taken as a group. There is a fallacy of composition here because in the premises:
“Elephant eat more than humans”, the attribute of “eating more than” is predicated
distributively, that is, each individual elephant is said to eat more than any
individual human eats. However, in the conclusion, the attribute “eating more
than” is predicated collectively; that is, elephant taken as a group are said to eat
more than humans taken as a group which is not true. Because there are so many
more humans than elephant.
.iii)Fallacy of Division
The fallacy of division is nothing more than the opposite of composition. In the
fallacy of division, if the whole has the attribute “X”, therefore the parts must have
the attribute
“X” as well.
Example: the airplane is heavy, so each of its part is heavy. There is a fallacy of
division here because some of the parts of a heavy air plane may be very light.
Here is an example of the second type of division fallacy; the soccer team is
excellent. Hence, each member of the team is excellent. There is a fallacy of
division here because a team may be excellent due to team work and few
outstanding players and yet have members who are not themselves excellent
players.

Fallacies Involving Unwarranted Assumptions

What we call “unwarranted assumptions’ are some errors in reasoning which in
context stand in need of support, but most of the time, the support is not always
provided thus making the assumption illegitimate or unjustified. This undermines
the force of the argument. It is not always easy to detect fallacies involving
unwarranted assumptions. In this section we mare going to study at least five major
fallacies involving unwarranted assumptions.
i)Begging the question (Petitio Principii)Petitio principii is a Latin expression
which means “begging the principle”. In logic we beg the question when we
assume the conclusion to be proven. Arguing in circle is another way of begging
the question. Example:The defendant is not guilty of the crime, for she is innocent
of having committed it.
There is fallacy here because the conclusion of the argument is almost the
rephrased version of the premise. And, in logic proper we cannot reasonably claim
to discover a truth by inference when that truth is itself included in the premises of
our argument. So, even if the above example is sound, you can still see it is
defective in that it assumes the conclusion to be proven.
ii)False dilemma In logic, the fallacy of false dilemma simply means that you use
a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered. In
other words, there is a fallacy of false dilemma when the arguer assumes without
justification, a limited number of possible alternatives when actually there is more
than that. Here is a typical case:
I’m tired of all these young people criticizing their own country. What I say is this,
“Nigeria, love it or leave it! And since these people obviously do not want to leave
the country, they should love it instead of criticizing it.There is a fallacy of false
dilemma here because the argument presupposes that there are only two options:
either you love Nigeria (uncritically) or you emigrate. However you should know
that there are other possibilities or alternatives.You should also know that an
argument cannot be called false dilemma unless you are able to specify at least one
alternative that has been ignored.
iii)Appeal to authority (Ad verecundiam fallacy): Ad Verecundiam is a Latin
phrase which means “appeal to authority”. So, ad verecundiam fallacy occurs when
you appeal to an authority even though the reliability of that authority can be
reasonably doubted. In other words, ad verecundiam is committed when there is
doubt about whether an authority is reliable or not. Always keep in mind that a
reliable authority is one who can be counted on to provide correct information in a
given area. For example, when we cite encyclopedias, dictionaries, textbooks or
maps. We do not commit the ad verecundian fallacy. The fallacy of appeal to
authority is most common in advertising. Some products are usually endorsed by
some celebrities even when they lack the required expertise. Here is a typical
example: Prof. Otakpor of the Department of Philosophy University of Benin says
Red wine is very good for blood circulation. So, Red wine is very good for blood
circulation. There is an ad verecundiam fallacy here because event though Prof.
Otakpor is known as a good professor of Philosophy, there is serious doubt
whether he is an expert in human physiology. And, there are many cases of this
nature particularly in
advertising. Another difficulty in detecting ad verecundian occurs when a well –
known expert in one field is cited as an expert in another field even if he or she
lacks expertise in it. This kind
of fallacy easily occurs when the two fields are related.
iv)False Cause fallacy There are many forms of false cause fallacy. But the most
common form is called in Latin post hoc, ergopropter hoc, which means “after this,
therefore because of this”.
Generally, a false cause fallacy occurs when the arguer illegitimately assumes a
possible cause of a phenomenon to be the only cause although reasons are lacking
for excluding other possible causes. Here is an example:
Since I came into office 2 years ago, the rate of violent crime has decreased
significantly. So, it is clear that the longer prison sentences we recommended are
working (Layman, 2000: 151).
There is false cause because the longer prison sentences may be a causal factor, but
the simple fact that the longer sentences preceded the decrease in violent crime
does not prove this. There is no doubt that other causal factors need to be
considered. You should also remember that it is not every false cause fallacy that
involves the unwarranted assumption that if X precedes Y, then X causes Y.
Slippery Slope
This is a special variety of false cause. This fallacy occurs when “the arguer
assumes that a chain reaction on will occur but there is insufficient evidence that
one (or more) events in the chain will cause the others” (Layman, 2000:153).It is
clear from the above example that gambling is not a risk-free practice. But there is
no logical cause or sufficient
evidence to show that buying a lottery ticket will cause you to die homeless and
lonely. This is simply a slippery slope fallacy. This fallacy has a unique quality in
the sense that it most of the time plays on our deepest fears. It is on record that
during the Vietnam War, most people frequently claimed that “If Vietnam fell to
communism, a chain reaction would occur, with the result that many countries
would come under communist rule” (Layman, 2000: 153).But history shows that
there is no solid evidence that such a chain reaction would have occurred. Indeed,
many Americans feared that it would. And, this was simply a slippery slope fallacy.
v)Complex Question falacy: In logic, a question is complex when the questioner
presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question. Here are typical examples
of complex questions:
a)Have you stopped beating your wife?
b)Why is physics so boring? These questions contain the fallacy of complex
question. In (a) for instance the questioner has already presupposed that you used
to be up your wife. In (b) he assumes that physics is uninteresting/boring.

In Summary
Formal Fallacies

1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the person instead of the argument)

2. Straw Man (Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument)
3. False Dilemma (Presenting only two options when there are more)
4. Slippery Slope (Arguing that a particular action will inevitably lead to a series of
negative consequences)
5. Appeal to Ignorance (Arguing that something is true because it has not been
proven false)
6. Appeal to Authority (Using an authority's opinion as evidence)
7. Begging the Question (Assuming the truth of the conclusion one is trying to
prove)
8. Circular Reasoning (Using a conclusion as a premise)
9. Conjunction Fallacy (Assuming that the probability of two events occurring
together is greater than the probability of either event occurring alone)
10. Denying the Antecedent (Assuming that if the antecedent of a conditional
statement is false, then the consequent must also be false)

Informal Fallacies

1. Ad Populum (Appealing to popular opinion)

2. Ad Verecundiam (Appealing to authority or prestige)
3. Appeal to Emotion (Using emotions rather than logic to persuade)
4. Appeal to Pity (Using pity or sympathy to persuade)
5. Bandwagon Fallacy (Assuming that something is true or good because many
people believe it or do it)
6. False Analogy (Using an analogy that is not relevant or accurate)
7. Guilt by Association (Associating someone with a negative or disreputable
person or group)
8. Hasty Generalization (Making a generalization based on insufficient evidence)
9. Red Herring (Introducing a distracting or irrelevant point to divert attention from
the main argument)
10. Straw Man Fallacy (Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument)

Semantic Fallacies

1. Ambiguity (Using language that is unclear or open to multiple interpretations)

2. Equivocation (Using a word or phrase with multiple meanings in a way that is
misleading or confusing)
3. Double Meaning (Using a word or phrase with multiple meanings to deceive or
mislead)
4. Semantic Ambiguity (Using language that is unclear or open to multiple
interpretations)

Psychological Fallacies

1. Appeal to Fear (Using fear to persuade or manipulate)

2. Appeal to Pity (Using pity or sympathy to persuade)
3. Appeal to Pride (Using pride or ego to persuade)
4. Bandwagon Effect (Assuming that something is true or good because many
people believe it or do it)
5. Confirmation Bias (Seeking only information that confirms one's
preconceptions)
6. Hindsight Bias (Believing that an event was predictable after it has occurred)
7. Illusion of Control (Believing that one has control over events that are actually
random or unpredictable)
8. Self-Serving Bias (Attributing success to oneself and failure to external
circumstances)

Other Fallacies
1. Anecdotal Evidence (Using personal experiences or isolated incidents as
evidence)
2. Cherry Picking (Selectively presenting data or evidence to support a conclusion)
3. False Dichotomy (Presenting only two options when there are more)
4. Historian's Fallacy (Assuming that past events are relevant to the present)
5. Lack of Evidence (Arguing that something is true because there is no evidence
to prove it false)
6. Moving the Goalposts (Changing the criteria for a conclusion or argument)
7. No True Scotsman (Defining a term or concept in a way that excludes
counterexamples)
8. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Assuming that because one event follows another,
the first event caused the second)
9. Slippery Slope Fallacy (Arguing that a particular action will inevitably lead to a
series of negative consequences)
10. Tu Quoque (Accusing someone of hypocrisy or inconsistency to deflect
criticism)

Note: This is not an exhaustive list, and some sources may group or categorize
fallacies differently.