-asking a question as to presuppose
FALLACY
- arguments in logic which at first
glance appear to be correct and upon
close examination are invalid where the
premises does not support the
conclusion
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
1. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
2. APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY
3. COMPLEX QUESTION
4. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
5. POISONING THE WELL
6. ACCIDENT/DICTO SIMPLICITER
7. CONVERSE ACCIDENT/ HASTY
GENERALIZATION
8. CIRCULAR AGREEMENT/ BEGGING
THE QUESTION
9. APPEAL TO EMOTION
10. APPEAL TO FORCE
11. APPEAL TO PITY
12. IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
-arguments that rely on premise that
are not relevant to its conclusion ergo
cannot possibly establish the truth of
the conclusion
-premise "misses the point"
1) ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
ARGUMENT OF IGNORANCE
-committed when proposition is true
simply because it is not yet proven false
; proposition is simply false simply
because it has not been proven true
ex.
Geo centric theory
-earth center of the earth
Helios-centric theory
-sun as center of universe
presumptions of law
- Innocence presumed; presumption of
regularity in performance of duties
2)APPEAL TO
INAPPROPRIATE/MISPLACED
AUTHORITY
-quoting bad law or repealed law
-appeal to pity
3)COMPLEX QUESTION
some truth buried in the question
-whatever answer one makes
incriminates himself
4)ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
ARGUMENT ATTACK PERSON
-fallacious attack in which attack thrust
at person and not argument of person
KINDS
a. ABUSIVE
-deny intelligence/ reasonableness of
opponent in question or question
integrity of opponent rather than the
soundness of his argument
-psychological persuasion
b. CIRCUMSTANTIAL
-connecting between belief held and
circumstances of those holding it in
order to discredit his point
*TU QUOQUE - look who's talking
5)POISONING THE WELL
-before stating proposition, destroying
credibility of adverse party
6)ACCIDENT/DICTO SIMPLICITER
-overzealous application of a general
rule
-sweeping generalization
-result of careless/deliberate use of
generalization
-applying generalization to cases which
is not proper
7) CONVERSE ACCIDENT/ HASTY
GENERALIZATION
-when one applies a principle that is
true of a particular case to a great
number of other cases
*PRO CAUSE NON CAUSA
-reasoning that relies on treating a
cause of a thing which is not really the
cause
8) CIRCULAR AGREEMENT/ BEGGING
THE QUESTION
-premise supports conclusion but not good
reasoning
ex.
He is innocent because he is not guilty
beyond reasonable doubt
9)APPEAL TO EMOTION
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
-replaces laborious task of presenting
evidence and rational argument with
expressive language and other devices
calculated to execute enthusiasm
10) APPEAL TO FORCE
ARUMENTUM AD BACULUM
-careful reasoning is replaced with
direct/insinuated threats in order to bring
about acceptance of some conclusion
ex.
citing person in contempt for not following
procedure
11) APPEAL TO PITY
ARGUMENTUM MISERICORDIAM
-when careful reasoning is replaced by
devices calculated to elicit sympathy on
the part of the hearer for the object of the
speakers concern
-instead of logically presenting argument
appeals to altruism, mercy of the person
12)IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION/
IGNORATIO ELENCHI
-argument purports to establish one
conclusion actually directed at some other
conclusion
*NON-SEQUITOR BLUNDERS
-premise does not support Conclusion or
Conclusion does not follow from premise
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
-mistakes in argument arise as a result of
the shift in the meaning of words or
phrases, from meanings that they have in
the premise to different meaning that they
have in the conclusion
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
1. EQUIVOCATION
2. AMPHIBOLY
3. ACCENT
4. COMPOSITION
5. DIVISION
1. EQUIVOCATION
-same word or phrase is used with 2 or
more meanings, deliberately or
accidentally in the formulation of an
argument
2. AMPHIBOLY
-when one of the statements in an
argument has more than one plausible
meaning, because of loose or awkward way
in which words in that statement have been
combined
3. ACCENT
-when a shift of meaning arises within an
argument as a consequence of changes in
the emphasis given to its words or parts
4. COMPOSITION
-when one reasons mistakenly from the
attributes of a part to the attributes of the
whole
-when one reasons mistakenly from the
attributes of an individual member of some
collection to the attributes of the totality of
that collection
5. DIVISION
-when one reasons mistakenly from the
attributes of the whole to the attributes of
one of its parts
-when one reasons mistakenly from the
attributes of a totality of some collection of
entities to the attributes of the individual
entities within that collection
COMPOSITION V DIVISION
COMPOSITION
-from attributes of A PART TO attributes to
A WHOLE
-from attributes of an INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
OF SOME COLLECTION TO TOTALITY OF
COLLECTION
DIVISION
-from attributes of the WHOLE to attributes
to ONE PART
-from attributes of TOTATILTY of some
collection to attributes of INDIVIDUAL
ENTITIES WITHIN that collection