Logical Fallacies

A fallacy is any sort of mistake in reasoning or inference; it is a term used to denote anything that causes an argument to go wrong.

Common Fallacies
Fallacies of Ambiguity A term is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. Equivocation When ambiguity occurs because a single word is used in two different senses, the fallacy is called equivocation. e.g. Socrates is a man; man is a species; therefore, Socrates is a species. Johnny is a cancer; cancer kills; therefore, Johnny kills. Amphiboly When ambiguity occurs because the whole sentence is ambiguous, rather than a word, the fallacy is called an amphiboly. Each word may not be ambiguous, but the whole sentence will be because of its grammatical structure. Dangling participles and incorrect use of negation often result in amphibolous statements. e.g. Remove the plant when thoroughly soaked. (dangling part.) All men are not good. (inexact negation; use of all in negative sent.)

Fallacy of Composition What is assumed to be true of a part is asserted to be true of the whole. (looks like a sound inductive argument). Pedro is Spanish and rich; therefore, Spain is rich. Fallacy of Division Opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. It claims that what is true of a whole must be true of all its parts. Canada is a wealthy country; therefore John Doe is wealthy. Fallacy of Emphasis Depends on incorrect emphasis of words. Often used by advertisers who offer the moon in big, black letters, but take it all back in the fine print. Often is humorous: He: Dance? She: Love to! He: Great! Thats better than dancing.

Fallacies of Relevance Depend on the context in which statement is made. Fallacy of Significance A ploy often used in advertising, the fallacy of significance misleads in that the information being given may really have no significance. e.g. e.g. More people drink Pepsi. (Is this 5,000,001 versus 5,000,000? If so, the claim is meaningless. 60 % of doctors who smoke, smoke Tarsticks! (Does not say how many doctors do smoke, nor if they smoke ONLY Tarsticks.)

Fallacy of Quoting out of Context Quoting very selectively from a longer passage: Original: I would enjoy this book if, and only if, it were the only book in the world, or if I were on a desert island and had nothing else to read. Quotation: I would enjoy this book . . . if I were on a desert island . . . . Argumentum ad Hominem An argument directed against a person, rather than against what a person says, in order to show what he/she says cannot be true. This is a favourite of politicians. Abusive: "Don't believe anything John says; he's a nerd." Circumstantial: Your claim that alcohol is dangerous is nonsense since you drink. But Doctor, how can you tell me to stop smoking? You smoke too! "Of course he thinks fraternities are great. He's a Phi Delta." Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Arguing from Authority) A statement is not true or false merely because someone says so, even if that someone is an expert. Rod Stewart is a great musician because Paul Simon says so. We may lend an authoritys opinion some validity if the authority is commenting on something in his own field. The above statement about Rod Stewart is not proved by what Paul Simon says, but I may accept Simons opinion because he knows more about music than I do; however, there is never good reason to accept what Simon says about politics or logging or unemployment insurance. Further examples: De Niro selling bank services, Gretzky selling clothes or fries. Appealing to Sentiment (evading the issue) Arguments that attempt to prove a statement by reporting how people feel about it. Everybody knows that democracy is the best form of government. Thousands of Americans who use Scrubbies cant be wrong.

The defendant couldnt possibly have committed the murder; he has a wife and six children. (argumentum ad misericordiam) Argumentum ad Ignorantium Claims that a statement must be true because there is no evidence to disprove it. You cant prove that God does not exist; therefore, He must exist. There is no proof that witches exist; therefore, they do not. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) Also called Assuming what you are trying to prove, or circular argument. Occurs when either the same statement is used as a premise and a conclusion, or when one of the premises could not be known to be true before the conclusion were first assumed to be true. Often difficult to detect when premises and conclusions are widely separated by a long chain of argumentation. George Lucas is a great director. How do you know? He made Star Wars and that is a great film. How do you know it is a great film? George Lucas made it, and he is a great director. "It's time to come in the house now, Billy." "Why?" "Because I said so!" "Why?" "Because it's time, and I said so."

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi) (red herring) When one starts out to prove one thing and ends up proving something different. In a law court, in attempt to prove that the accused is guilty of theft, the prosecution may argue that theft is a horrible crime for anyone to commit. If you were writing an essay on the dangers of smoking, and ended up proving that smokers were rude and annoying, you would be guilty of this fallacy. Non Sequitur (Does not Follow) Where a conclusion may be true, but irrelevant, a non sequitur has been committed. Also called argumentative leap. Also used in formal logic to say that the conclusion of an argument does not follow from the premises when it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Ignoratio Elenchi is a kind of non sequitur. Akin to Hasty Generalizations. All Nazis are murderers; George is not a Nazi; therefore, George is not a murderer.

Hasty Generalization Everybody knows . . . Similar to Fallacy of Composition and non sequitur. Converse Accident (hasty generalization) "That man is an alcoholic. Liquor should be banned." Post hoc ergo propter hoc (hasty generalization)(False cause) Many of our superstitions stem from use of this fallacy. I have a cold today because I got my feet wet yesterday. Faulty Analogy Figures of speech do not prove anything; use them only to illustrate. Statistical Fallacies Statistics are dangerous. One must know: 1. methods applied in gathering data 2. controls exercised over the data 3. size and nature of sample 4. definitions of terms used in the study (e.g. What does cleaner than mean?) 61% of Dentists polled recommend ENAMELITE. how many dentists? recommend to whom? Biassed or Suppressed Evidence Figures dont lie, but liars figure. Related to Statistical Fallacies. Distinguishing Fact from Opinion Dont mingle facts and opinions; learn to distinguish the two. Shifting the Burden of Proof Dont evade the responsibility of proving your argument by demanding that those who disagree prove the opposite: God Exists No, he doesnt. OK, prove that he doesnt. You are shifting the burden of proof.

Argumentum ad Bacculum (appeal to force) "Pay back the loan and 10 % daily interest by Thursday, or be sure that you have you hospital insurance paid up."

Argumentum ad Populum -"Don't be left out! Buy your Chevette today!" Accident "What you bought yesterday, you eat today; you bought raw meat yesterday; therefore, you eat raw meat today." Loaded Question (complex question) related to Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Visit this site for detailed analyses of logic and logical fallacies. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html