The fallacy of composition:

This error involves individuals, wherein it holds that what is true for one individual will be true
for all others. The example has often been given of one who stands up during a football game.
True, he will be able to see better, but if everyone else stands up too, the view of many
individual spectators will probably worsen. A counterfeiter who prints a million dollars will
certainly benefit himself (if he doesn't get caught) but if we all become counterfeiters and each
print a million dollars, a quite different effect is rather obvious. Many an economics textbook
speaks of the farmer who is better off because he has a bumper crop but may not be better off
if every farmer has one. This suggests a widespread recognition of the fallacy of composition,
yet it is a fact that the error still abounds in many places. The good economist neither sees the
trees and ignores the forest nor sees the forest and ignores the trees; he is conscious of the
entire "picture."



Post hoc Propter hoc:
Post hoc ergo Propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." It is often
shortened to simply post hoc. Some philosophy books translate the Latin to simply: "If after,
then therefore, because."
Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause," is a logical fallacy which
assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of
the second. It is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence is integral to causality
it is true that a cause always happens before its effect. The fallacy lies in coming to a
conclusion based only on the order of events, which is not an accurate indicator. That is to say,
it is not always true that the first event caused the second event.
Post hoc is an example of affirming the consequent. It can be expressed as follows:
When A occurs, B occurs.
Therefore, A causes B.
Examples:
1. A rooster always crows prior to sunrise
2. Therefore: the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise.
or,
1. Ice cream sales elevate greatly each June
2. The number of common colds lower greatly each July.
3. Therefore: higher ice cream consumption cures the common cold.
or,
1. In autumn, leaves fall on the pavement.
2. Autumn is the season when cement pavements crack.
3. Therefore: the falling leaves crack the pavement.
This line of reasoning is the basis for many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking,
connecting two things that have no actual or logical connection. For example, if a person sees a
coin on the ground and picks it up, and later receives good news, that person may become
convinced that finding the coin resulted in the good news, even though it was a mere
coincidence.



Fallacy of Subjectivity:
Most of generalizations in economic analysis are based on a set of assumptions. Some of these
assumptions are sometimes stated explicitly, and some implicitly in terms of phrases like other
things being equal. Some of these assumptions are factual statements, some are anti-factual or
counter factual. As such, the interferences which are drawn from the set of assumptions can at
best be described as tentative hypotheses, subject to qualifications. The conclusions from
economic analysis are, therefore, probabilistic rather than deterministic. Those conclusions may
be true. There is no certainty that they must be true. For example, a statistical inference will
hold true provided the sample size is sufficiently large and reliable. An economic theory will
hold valid provided assumptions on which it is based are more realistic and less restrictive.
However in most of the arguments, the propositions of economic analysis are accepted at their
face value, without paying much heed to the nature of the underlying assumptions. The result
is probabilistic statements sell as deterministic ones. Consider this: workers often ask for high
and higher wages to compensate the increasing costs of living during periods of inflation. But
wage increase may or may not compensate the rising costs of living depending on whether or
not workers maintain their productivity. If this productivity assumption does not obtain,
workers demand makes no sense. Thus, fallacious reasoning results from failure to unearth the
underlying assumptions of economic analysis.


2 Fallacies: Fallacies of Assumption

Fallacies that violate the second criterion of a good argument (the premises should be
plausible), are classified as Fallacies of Assumption. Below are some common such fallacies.

Straw Man

A very common strategy to refute someones position is to distort this persons position
(usually by exaggeration of what that person is saying), after which reasons against the
distorted position are being given. However, reasons against the distorted position do of course
nothing to refute the original position. We say that the attacker is putting up a straw man: a
distortion of someones real position, where the distortion is defenseless. Here is a good
example from Rush Limbaugh:
Im a very controversial figure to the animal rights movement . because I am
constantly challenging their fundamental premise that animals are superior to human
beings.

Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning

In a good argument, the premises should be less controversial than the conclusion.
Thus, if I argue that God exists because the Bible says so, then I am assuming the equally
controversial statement that everything that the Bible says is true. However, someone who
doesnt believe in God probably doesnt believe everything that the Bible says either. Hence,
this argument doesnt work, and it is said to beg the question. In fact, if I argue that we should
believe the Bible because it is the word of God, then I am in effect assuming that God exists.
Hence, I would support Gods existence by indirectly assuming Gods existence! This special
form of begging the question is called circular reasoning.

False Dilemma

Sometimes, people reason that if answer A isnt right, then answer B must be the right
one. However, this reasoning is only correct if A and B are the only two possible answers. If not,
then the fallacy of false dilemma has been committed. Example: The theory of evolution is
mistaken, therefore creationism is true. This argument is fallacious, because there can be
other alternatives as well.