Chapter Three: Informal

fallacies
A fallacy is a defect in an argument.
It can be committed in many ways.
 an error in reasoning.

But, they usually involve either a mistake in reasoning or the

creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good
(or both).

If both deductive and inductive arguments contain fallacies, they

are either unsound or uncogent. If an argument is unsound or
uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy
(or both).

1
 Fallacies are usually of two types: formal and
informal.

A formal fallacy is one that may be identified through mere

inspection of the form or structure of an argument.

It is a mistake with respect to the form; or which resulted

from breaking some rule of validity.

Fallacies of this kind are usually found only in deductive

arguments that have clearly recognized forms: categorical,
disjunctive and hypothetical syllogisms.
 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.
2
 Examples of formal fallacy,
1) All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.

The above argument has this form:

All A are B The correct form is this one:

All C are B All A are B
Therefore, All A are C All B are C
All A are C
3
2) If nepotism is wrong, then it is destructive.
It is destructive.
Hence, nepotism is wrong.

The form of this argument is:

If A, then B
B
Therefore, A (Fallacy of affirming the consequent)

3) If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

It is not raining.
So, the ground is not wet.

It has this form:

If A, then B
Not A
So, not B (Fallacy of denying the antecedent) 4
 Informal fallacies are those that can be detected
only through the analysis of the content of the argument.

→ are errors which arise from carelessness with respect to

the relevance of ideas or with respect to the clarity and
consistency of language.

→ require an examination of the argument’s content not the

form.
Ex. (1)
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
When we analyze the content of this argument it will have
the following form;
All “A” are “B”
All “C” are “D”
5
Therefore, All “A” are “D”.
In this argument we represent the same
word, i.e. plants, by two different letters.

This is because contextual meaning of

the word “plants” in the first premise is
quite different from the contextual
meaning it has in the second premise.

In the first premise it represents a building

where something is manufactured;
whereas in the second premise it
represents a life form.
6
Ex. (2)
My wife’s brother is a real pig. You should see him eat!
And if he is a pig, then he is not a human.
So, he is not human.
Pig:- a person who habitually over eats.
-Pig:- (a kind of animal)
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. 7
1. Fallaciesof Relevance (Fallacies
involving irrelevant evidence)
Fallacies of relevance- premises that are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

Yet the premises are relevant psychologically,

so the conclusion may seem to follow from the
premises though it doesn’t follow logically.

In such arguments the connection between the

premise and conclusion is emotional.
8
A. Appeal to force (Argumentum ad
Baculum: Appeal to “stick”)

-This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer

poses a conclusion to another person and
tells either implicitly or explicitly some
harm will come to him or her if he or she
doesn’t accept the conclusion.

-It always involves a threat by the arguer

on the physical or psychological well being
of the reader or listener. Obviously such a
threat is logically irrelevant to the subject
matter of the conclusion.
9
Ex1. National to Alien
Addis Ababa is the most attractive city in the
world. If you don’t accept this and failed to write
in your news paper, I am going to tell the police
and you will be arrested.
Ex2. Child to play mate
“ Mr.x is the best show on TV and if you do not
believe it, I am going to call my big brother over here
and he is going to beat you up.”
Ex3. Secretary to Boss
“I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After
all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I
am sure you would not want her to find out what has
been going on between you and that sex pot client of
yours.”
10
B. Appeal to pity (Argumentum
ad misericordiam)
-It occurs whenever an arguer poses a
conclusion and then attempts to evoke pity from
the reader or listener in an effort to get him or
her to accept the conclusion. (sympathy)

E.g. A student to his teacher;

Sir! At the end of this semester, you must give
me “A”. If you don’t do this my girl friend will
hates me and the respect that I have from my
friends will be ruined. 11
Tax payer to judge:
Ex.2. Your honor I admit that I declined to
implement a government policy of value
added tax due to the fact that if I
implement it, I may loose additional
money which would enable me to open a
new business for my elder son. If you take
any measure against this, I will probably
lose my job, my poor wife won’t be able to
have the operation that she desperately
needs, and may kids will starve. Surely, I
am not guilty. 12
C. Appeal to the people
(Argumentum ad populum)
- It uses such desires as to be loved,
esteemed, admired, valued, recognized
and accepted to get the reader or listener
to accept a conclusion.
-It occurs when an arguer attempts to
persuade a person or group of persons by
appealing to be accepted or valued by
others. Two approaches are involved
here: direct and indirect. 13
The direct approach occurs when
an arguer, addressing a large
group of people, elicits the
emotions and enthusiasm of the
crowd to win acceptance for his
conclusion. The objective is to
arouse mob mentality.
-The direct approach is not limited
to oral argumentation but also
similar effect can be accomplished
in writing. 14
 -In the indirect approach the arguer
directs his/her appeal not to the crowd as
a whole but to one or more individuals
separately, focusing up on some aspects
of their relationship to the crowd.
The indirect approach has three forms.
1. the bandwagon argument,
2. the appeal to vanity, and
3. appeal to snobbery.
All are standard techniques of the
advertising industry. 15
ex. of bandwagon argument
Of course you want to buy Colgate toothpaste.
Why, 90 percent of American people brushes
with Colgate.

The idea here is you will be left behind or left

out of the group if you do not use the product.

16
The appeal to vanity often associates the
product with a certain celebrity who is
admired and pursued, the idea being that
you, too, will be admired and pursued if
you use it.
Example;
Do you want to have modern shoes?
Then, you should have to choose
Ambessa Shoe Factory. This is because
our products are the first choice of the
famous athlete Haile G/selassie.
17
Example of appeal to snobbery.

Coca cola is not for everyone. It is

consumed only by those who have the
ability to distinguish high quality products
from others.

Here the point is if you qualify as one of

the selected few, you should prefer the
product. 18
D. Argument against Person
(Argumentum ad Hominiem)

This fallacy always involves two arguers.

One of them advances either directly or
indirectly a certain argument, the other
then responds by directing his or her
attention not on the first person’s
argument, but to the first person himself.

19
When this occurs the second person is said to
commit an argument against the person. It has
three forms:
1. ad hominiem abusive,
2. ad hominiem circumstantial and
3. tu quoque (“you too” fallacy).

In ad hominiem abusive the second person

responds to the first person’s argument by
verbally abusing the first person.

E.g. Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis theory is

nonsensical and unacceptable. Freud, you know,
was a stupid bigot Jewish.
20
Unlike to ad hominiem abusive, ad
hominiem circumstantial rather than
verbally abusing the opponent, the arguer
tries to find certain circumstances that
affect his/her opponent.
E.g. George Bush argued against the
inhuman attack of Israel on the innocent
Palestinians. He said, “the Israelites are
defending themselves”. This is because
he is the president of America who is the
close friend of Israel. Therefore, his
argument lacks trustworthiness. 21
 In the tu quoque (you too) fallacy the arguer
usually cite features in the life or behavior of the
first arguer that conflicts with the latter’s
conclusion. The nature of this fallacy looks like
this:
“How do you argue that I should stop doing
“X”; why you do or have done X yourself”
E.g. My teacher told me that cheating on exam
is a bad habit. But he himself used to cheat on
the exam when he was at university. Therefore,
his argument against cheating on exam is
foolish.
22
E. Accident
The fallacy of accident is committed when
general rule is applied to the specific case it
was not intended to cover. The general rule
is cited in the premise and the wrongly
applied to the specific case mentioned in
the conclusion.

E.g. whoever pierces a person’s body with a

knife should be brought to court. But
surgeons often do this when operating.
Therefore, surgeons should be brought to
court. 23
 F. Straw man Fallacy
[

It is committed when an arguer distorts

an opponent’s argument for the purpose
of more easily attacking it, demolishes
the distorted argument, and then
concludes that the opponent’s real
argument has been demolished. [[

Always involves two arguers.

Exaggeration of the first person’s
argument by the second arguer is common.
24
 E.g. So many people these days are
against prayer in public schools. Of
course, the assumption underlying this
view includes, there is no God only
matter exists and life is essentially
meaningless.

That is why we must fight against these

who seek to remove prayer from our
public school. 25
 G. Missing the point
(Ignoratio Elenchi)
It occurs when the premises of an argument
support one particular conclusion, but then
a different conclusion, often vaguely related
to the correct conclusion, is drawn.
Ignoratio Elenchi means “ignorance of the
proof”. The arguer is ignorant of the logical
implication of his/her premises, and draws a
conclusion that misses the point.
26
 E.g. Crimes of theft and robbery
have been increasing at alarming
rate lately. Therefore, we must
restate the death penalty
immediately.

27
H. The Red herring Fallacy
It is committed when an arguer
diverts the attention of the
reader/listener by changing the
subject to some totally different
issue.
Ex.1. The position open in the accounting
department should be given to Abebe. Abebe
has six hungry children to feed, and his wife
desperately needs an operation to save her
eye sight.
28
II. Fallacies of Weak Induction
They occur when the connection between
premises and conclusion is not strong enough
to support the conclusion

Or when there is no enough evidence in an

argument for us to believe the conclusion.

However, the fallacies of weak induction often

involve emotional grounds for believing the
conclusion.
29
A. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
It occurs when the cited authority or
witness is not trustworthy.
Possible Reasons :
i. lack of the required expertise.
ii. Biased ness or prejudice.
E.g. Ato Tekele, the deaf person who lives in
Mekelle, stated that hearing the voice of birds
at the early morning gives a delight full
pleasure. From this we can conclude that it is
pleasurable to hear the voice of birds at every
30
B. Appeal
to Ignorance
(Argumentum ad Ignoratiam)
When the premises of an argument state that
nothing has been proved one way or another
about some thing and the conclusion then
makes a definite assertion about that thing

The issue usually involves some thing that has

not yet been proved.
E.g. Many scientists tried for decades to find
cure for HIV/AIDS, but no one succeeded.
From this, we can conclude that, no one will
succeed in finding cure for this virus.
31
C. Hasty Generalization
(Converse Accident)
It is a fallacy that affects inductive
generalization.

The sample is not representative of the group.

E.g. Both Haile G/Sillasie and Kennenisa

Bekele are world Athletics record holders. From
this we can conclude that all Ethiopian athletes
are world athletics record holders.
32
 D. False Cause
It occurs whenever the link between the
premise and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably
doesn’t exist.

“X” causes “Y”, where as “X” probably doesn’t

cause “Y” at all.

E.g. The moon was full on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning I over slept. Therefore the
full moon caused me to oversleep.
33
 This fallacy has three forms;
i. post hoc ergo propter hoc,(after this, therefore
on account of this)
the first event causes the second event.
E.g. A black cat crossed my path and latter I
tripped and sprained my ankle.
It must be that black cats really are bad luck.

ii. non causa pro causa (not cause for the cause)
The cause of some thing is not really the cause
at all
E.g. There are more laws on the books than ever
before and more crimes are being committed
than before. Therefore, to reduce crime
we must eliminate the laws.
34
 iii. over simplified cause.

Ex. The quality of education in our high schools

has been declining for years.
Clearly, our teachers just are not doing
their job these days.

35
E. Slippery slope
Occurs when the conclusion of an argument
rests upon an alleged chain of reaction and
there is not sufficient reason to think that the
chain of reaction will actually takes place.
E.g. Immediate actions must be taken against the
mass production of weapons. If not, every
individual will arm a weapon and rise
against each other. This will lead to a
frequent action of killing each other in the
society. This in turn will result in the extinction
of human race from the universe.
36
F. Weak Analogy
Is committed when the analogy is not strong
enough to support the conclusion.

E.g. If a car breaks down on the freeway a

passing mechanic is not obligated to render
emergency road service. For similar reason
if a person suffers a heart attack on the
street, a passing physician is not obligated to
render emergency medical assistance.

37
III. Fallacies of
Presumption, Ambiguity,
and Grammatical Analogy
Fallacies of Presumption
the premises presume what they purport
to prove. The truth is uncertain or implausible.
Fallacies of Ambiguity some form ambiguity in
either the premise or the conclusion (or both).
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
grammatically analogous to other arguments
that are good in every respect (linguistic
similarity). 38
Fallacies of Presumption
a. Begging the Question (Petitio Principi)
It occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology
that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a
key premise.
If the reader/listener is deceived into thinking that the key
premise is true, he/she will accept the argument as sound,
when in fact it may not be.
It is called circular reasoning (saying two things in
slightly different ways).
E.g.1. Smoking cigarettes can harm one’s health.
So, it is best to avoid smoking assuming one
wants to be healthy.
2. Capital punishment is justified for the
crimes and kidnapping because it is quite
legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to
death for having committed such hateful and
inhuman acts 39
 b. Complex question
It occurs when a single question that is really two (or
more) questions is asked and a single answer is then
applied to both questions.
E.g.1. Have you stopped cheating on exam?
2. where did you hide the cookies you stole?
The above single question consists in it self the
following two questions;
1. Did you cheat on exam in the past?
2. If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?
It involves an implicit argument, usually intended to
trap the respondent in to acknowledging something
that he/she might otherwise not want to acknowledge.
A leading question is one in which the answer is in
some way suggested in the question. 40
c. False Dichotomy (false
bifurcation or the “either…. or
...” fallacy)
It is committed when one premise of an
argument is an “either… or …”
(disjunctive) statement that presents two
alternatives as if they were jointly
exhaustive (as if no third alternative were
possible). One of the alternatives is
usually preferred by the arguer.
41
E.g. Either you buy only American
made product or you don’t deserve to
be called a loyal American. Yesterday
you bought a new Toyota (i.e.
Japanese product). Therefore, it is
clear that you don’t deserve to be
called a loyal American.

42
D. Suppressed Evidence
Committed when the arguer ignores some
important piece of evidence that
outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion.

E.g. Most dogs are friendly and pose no

threat to people who pet them. Therefore,
it would be safe to pet the little dog that is
approaching to us now.
The arguer ignores that dogs also be a means
for disease 43
E. Equivocation
It occurs when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the fact that one or more words are
used, either explicitly or implicitly in to two
different senses in the argument.
E.g.1) Any law can be replaced by the
legislative authority. So, the law of gravity can
be replaced by the legislative authority.
Law -in the first premise it describes social law.
-in the second premise it describes
natural law.
44
F. Amphiboly
It occurs when the arguer misinterprets a
statement that is ambiguous and proceeds to draw
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
The original statement is usually asserted by
someone other than the arguer.
and structural defect is usually a mistake in
grammar or punctuation-missing comma, a
dangling modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of a
pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of
words.
E.g. 1.John told Henry that he had made a mistake.
It follows that John has at least the courage to
admit his own mistakes.
– Who made mistake, John or Henry?
45
 Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two
important ways.
First, equivocation is always traced to an
ambiguity in the meaning of one or more
words, whereas amphiboly involves a
structural defect in a statement.
Second, amphiboly usually involves a mistake
made by the arguer in interpreting an
ambiguous statement made by someone
else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation
is typically the arguer’s own creation.
Occasionally, however, the two fallacies occur
together. 46
G. Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when
the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from the
parts of something onto the whole.

It occurs when it is argued that because the

parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the
whole has that attribute too and the situation is
such that the attribute in question cannot be
legitimately transferred from parts to whole.
47
E.g.1. Each atom in this piece of chalk is
invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

2. Sodium And chlorine, the atomic

components of salt, are both deadly poisons.
Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.

Note every such transference is illegitimate.

Consider the following example

E.g. Every atom in this piece of chalk has

mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.
(No fallacy is committed).
48
composition and division are classified as
fallacies of grammatical analogy.
Composition is sometimes confused
with hasty generalization. To avoid the
confusion, examine the conclusion of the
argument. If the conclusion is a general
statement, a statement in which an attribute
is predicated distributively to each and
every member of a class, the fallacy
committed is hasty generalization. But if the
conclusion is a class statement, in which an
attribute is predicated collectively to a class
as a whole. 49
Division
The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of
composition. As composition goes from parts to whole,
division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is
committed when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute
from a whole (a class) to its parts (or members).
E.g.1. Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore,
its component elements sodium and chlorine are
nonpoisonous.
2. The Royal Society is over 300 years old.
Professor Thomson is a member of the Royal Society.
Therefore, Professor Thomson is over 300 years old.
This kind of transference is not always illegitimate.
50
The following argument contain no fallacy:
E.g. This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the
atoms that compose this piece of chalk have
mass. (No fallacy is committed).
Division is sometimes confused with
accident. Division proceeds from the class
to the members, while accident proceeds
from the general to the specific. Thus, to
avoid such a mistake, examine the
premises. If the premises contain a general
statement, the fallacy committed is
accident; if they contain a class statement,
the fallacy is division.
E.g. Stanley Steamers have almost disappeared.
This car is a Stanley steamer. Therefore, this car
has almost disappeared. (The fallacy committed51 is
division).
52