Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4


Fallacy of ignorantio elenchi is also called Irrelevant conclusion This fallacy is committed when the disputant brushes aside or ignores the real question at issue and attempts to prove something which has no bearing on the question under discussion. The following are under this fallacy: Argumentum ad hominum (Argument To The Man): Attacking the person, persons character, personality or belief instead of attacking his argument. A common form is an attack on sincerity: Example: How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes? There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: Example: In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem. Attack on the other person's intelligence: Example: If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view. Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. Argumentum as populum (Argument By Emotive Language - Appeal To The People) Using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, envy, condescension, and so on. Example: A person on trial for a crime of theft pleaded for mercy on the ground that he had force to steal to provide food for his starving family, instead of presenting evidence in his defense. Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal To False Authority) This fallacy is committed when the debater contends that what he alleges is valid because it is supported by a person who commands respect and reverence. For example: Famous physicist John Taylor studied Uri Geller extensively and found no evidence of trickery or fraud in his feats." Taylor was not qualified to detect trickery or fraud of the kind used by stage magicians. Taylor later admitted Geller had tricked him, but he apparently had not figured out how. Argumentum ad judicium (Fallacy Of The General Rule) Assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. This fallacy is committed when the debater ignores the real question and maintains that his contention is valid because people in general believe it to be so. Example: All chairs have four legs. Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a onelegged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair? Argumentum ad bacculum (Appeal To Force) Committed when a debater ignores the real question and appeals to force rather than reason

Example: The traditional religious threat is that one will burn in Hell (Argumentum ad ignorantiam) Burden Of Proof: The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. It is a case of shifting of burden of proof. Example: I maintain that there are ghosts, because you cannot prove that there are no ghosts. Fallacy of Quantity This fallacy often arises from the confusion in the denotation of word all. Example: All is used collectively All wrestlers in WWE weight 4000 pounds. All is used individually All wrestlers in WWE weight 200 plus pounds. This fallacy could also be classified into: Fallacy of composition This fallacy sometimes called false synthesis, is a fallacy of quantity in which asserts that what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively. Example: A car makes less pollution than a bus. Therefore, cars are less of a pollution problem than buses. Another example: Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless." Fallacy Of Division: This fallacy asserts that what is true of the whole taken collectively is true of a part taken singly Example: Human beings are made of atoms, and human beings are conscious, so atoms must be conscious.

Begging the Question Reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of the assumptions. This fallacy is often called petitio principii. Example: We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?) There are two types of this fallacy, one is Assumptio non-probata and the other one is Circulus in probando.

Assumptio non-probata arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as the means of proving the assumption. Example: All persons who have killed another must be sentenced to death. (this premise has to be proved first) Mr. A has killed another person. (either Mr. A committed a crime or had killed only for self defense) Therefore: Mr. A must be sentenced to death. (self defense cannot be sentenced to death, therefore a Fallacy) Circulus in probando arises when the arguer uses two unproved propositions, each to establish the validity of the other. Example: Juan answer is correct, because it is the same as the answer of Pablo. (The answer maybe both wrong) Non Sequitur: Something that just does not follow. The debater draws a conclusion from a premise without showing a valid connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion. There are two classes of non-sequitur. The simple non-sequitur and the false cause (post hoc, ergo proper hoc). Simple non sequitur Arises when a debater draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and effect. Example: Pedro is the most clever student in the U-university; therefore, he should be the granted basketball scholarship. False Cause This fallacy arises when the debater assumes that since one occurrence precedes another in point of time, that event is the cause of the one that follows. (Sequence is not causation.) Example: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons; or Every time I will attend my music lessons, my basketball team sure to win. The sun goes down because we've turned on the street lights. Fallacy of amphiology This fallacy arises on account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which give rise to miscomprehension. Example: The notorious criminal had been arrested by the policeman who robbed the bank.

Argument by Rhetorical Question Asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer. Example: When are we going to give the old citizens of this country the pension they deserve?" The speaker is leading the audience to the answer "Right now." Alternatively, he could have said "When will we be able to afford a major increase in old age pensions?" In that case, the answer he is aiming at is almost certainly not "Right now." Complex Question (Tying) Unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits. For example: Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?