Logical Fallacies

What is a Fallacy?
A Fallacy is an error of reasoning.
An argument whose premises do not support its
conclusion is one whose conclusion could be false even if
all the premises were true. In such cases, the reasoning is
bad, and the argument is said to be fallacious.
Fallacies include typical errors that arise in common
discourse. Each fallacy is a type of false argument, an
instance of a typical mistake. An argument in which
mistake of a given type appears is said to commit that
fallacy.

Classification of Fallacies:
Aristotle identified 13 fallacies. Nevertheless, there is
no determinable number of fallacies but for this
course we are focusing on the most common types of
fallacies. For convenience, they are divided into two
groups here:
I. Fallacies of Relevance
II. Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Relevance:

When an argument relies on premises that are not

relevant to its conclusion, and that therefore cannot
possibly establish the truth, the fallacy committed is
one of relevance. These are of several types.

The Argument from Ignorance/ Argument Ad

Ignorantiam:
When it is argued that the proposition is true simply
on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it
is false because it has not been proved true.
Examples: i) In a criminal court, it is argued that any
accused person is presumed innocent until proven
guilty. But can it imply that a person is innocent if
he/she is not guilty? Logically it seems to be an
example of an argument from ignorance.

But this special case centers around a presumed

definition of innocent as absence of factual errors
or any other reasonable doubt as specified by Judicial
systems. So, the court in this special context may
rightly claim that the only verdict possible in case of
no proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not guilty. In
all other cases any such appeal is fallacious.
ii) The argument that there is no global warming is
certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated
conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the
global warming theory false is not the same as proving
it true.

The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority/ Argument Ad

Verecundiam:
Whenever the truth of a proposition is asserted on the
basis of the authority of any one who has no special
competence in that sphere, the appeal to misplaced
authority is the fallacy committed.
Examples: i) In advertising testimonials, one is urged
to make a given choice like buying a particular
automobile, a beverage, a soap/detergent, a cellphone
etc because a particular cricketer or a movie star
endorses it. However, they may have no expertise in
the matter at hand.

ii) Citing a Physicist like Edward Teller whose competence

lies in technical design or construction of weapons in
determining political goals or resorting to Alexander
Solzhenitsyns fiction in determining a political dispute.
It is likely that even an expert can be mistaken. If any
authority A, asserts that a proposition p is true then it
depends on what p asserts, on what is the relation
between A and p, If As judgment has some value as
evidence for regarding the truth of p? These
considerations are an attempt to make a well reasoned
argument irrespective of the fact that even relying on an
expert can turn into an error in some cases.

Complex Question:
Asking a question in such a way as to presuppose the
truth of some conclusion buried in that question. The
question is likely to be rhetorical, no answer being
genuinely sought. When a question is accompanied
by the aggressive demand that it be answered yes or
no, there is reason to suspect that the question itself
is deliberately complex.
A single speaker may craftily pose the question
answer it, and then go on to use the conclusion that
has been deliberately buried within it. Or the question
may be posed and the fallacious assumption drawn,
while the answer to the question remains unstated,
only suggested or presumed.

This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into

acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not
want to acknowledge.
Example: Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Let us suppose the respondent answers "yes" to the question.
The following arguments emerge: You were asked whether
you
have
stopped
cheating
on
exams.
You answer "yes". Therefore, if follows that you have cheated
in the past.
On the other hand, let us suppose that the respondent answers
"no" to the question. We then have the following arguments:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams.
You answered "no." Therefore, you continue to cheat.
The questions is really two questions:

 Did you cheat on exams in the past?

If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?
If respondent does not identify a complex question
when one is put to him/her, one may answer quite
innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is
supported by no evidence at all; or, they may be
tricked into providing the evidence themselves.
The correct response lies in resolving the complex
question into its component questions and answering
each separately.

Argument Ad Hominem/ Argument against the person:

A fallacious attack in which the thrust is directed, not
at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or
defends it. To contend that the proposals are bad
because they are asserted by radicals or
extremists is one such example.
When argument ad hominem takes the form of
attacking the source or the genesis of the opposing
position- which is not relevant to its truth, it may then
be called Genetic fallacy. E.g: Labelling the one who
argues as being of a certain persuasion: a
chauvinist, a left-winger, misogynist etc. to
invoke an attitude of disapproval

 In the circumstantial form of ad hominem fallacy, an

irrelevant connection between the belief held and the
circumstances of those holding the belief is sought
that gives rise to the mistake. E.g.: insisting someone
to hold a belief merely because of the persons
nationality, employment, political affiliation, etc.
The circumstances of one who makes a claim have no
bearing on the truth of that claim.

Accident and Converse Accident:

When we apply a generalization to individual cases that it does not
properly govern, we commit the fallacy of accident.
Example:Germans are Nazis. The premise above could be used in
an argument concluding that all Germans or current Germans should
be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis. Instead of the claim:
Some Germans are Nazis.
On the other hand, when we apply a principle that is true of a
particular case to the great run of cases, we commit the fallacy of
converse accident.
Example: Did you see that teenager run that red light? Teenage
drivers are really pathetic." (converse accident fallacy)

False Cause:
Any reasoning that relies on treating the cause of a thing
what is not really its cause is considered as a fallacy of
false cause. The most common form is the error of
concluding that an event is caused by another simply
because it follows the other. Since we know that mere
temporal succession does not establish a causal
connection, it becomes a fallacy.
Example: "Napoleon became a great emperor because he
was
so
short."
If this were a causal inference, then all short people would
become emperors.

Begging the question/ Petitio Principii:

To beg the question is to assume the truth of what one

seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. A petitio
principii is always valid but always worthless too.
Example: When a questionably true premise, which is
needed to make the argument valid, is completely
ignored:
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it
follows that abortion is morally wrong.

The questionable premise that is ignored is, "Abortion

is a form of murder." The argument begs the
question, "How do you know that abortion is a form
of murder?" The premise that is stated, of course, is
indisputably true, and the phrase "This being the
case" makes it appear that the stated premise is all
that is needed.

Appeal to emotion/ Argument ad populum:

Such argument replaces the laborious task of
presenting evidence and rational argument with
expressive language and other devices calculated to
excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger or hate.
Examples: Hate speeches, Speeches of Adolf Hitler in
which he invokes the love of country to manipulate
his audience, Associating advertised products with
emotions that command attention like automobiles
with romance, etc.

The appeal to pity/ Argument ad misericordium:

A special case of appeal to emotion, in which altruism

and mercy of the audience are appealed to.
Example: "I should receive an 'A' in this class. After
all, if I don't get an 'A' I won't get the fellowship that I
want.
Our emotional responses are not always a good guide
to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues.
We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on
emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.

The appeal to force/ argument ad baculum:

The appeal to force to cause the acceptance of some
conclusion.
Example: If I succeed in threatening you, then you
will want to raise my salary.

Irrelevant Conclusion/ Ignoratio Elenchi:

When an argument purporting to establish a particular
conclusion is instead directed to proving a different
conclusion. The premises miss the point; the
reasoning may seem plausible in itself yet the
argument misfires as a defense of the conclusion in
dispute.
Examples: Such an argument is sometimes framed in
highly emotional language like:

 Im all for women having equal rights, said Bullfight

Association President Paco C. But I repeat, women
shouldnt fight bulls because a bull fighter is and
should be a man. ( San Francisco Chronicle, 28th
March 1972)